The research, released exclusively to The Sunday Age, shows that, because the ''economic value'' of the $23 a tonne carbon price is ''very small in relation to the economy as a whole'', it will be barely registered by families.

The GST produced four times more inflation than the carbon tax would and the recent rise in oil prices had more effect. Even the mining boom, seen by most as an economic positive, was twice as inflationary as the carbon tax, the modelling found.

''These are not minimal impacts, but given the government assistance being offered, it's certainly not a catastrophic or doom and gloom scenario,'' according to report author Steve Hatfield-Dodds, from the CSIRO.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's pitch to the nation on climate change has been that it will cost jobs, send industries offshore and hurt families.

But the report showed the total value of carbon permits would be about $8.5 billion in 2012-13, the first year of the scheme's operation, less than 0.6 per cent of the $1.5 trillion projected value of the economy.

The biggest effects for families will be on electricity prices, which would rise by about 10 per cent, and gas prices, which would be 5 per cent higher. On other goods and services, prices rise by a third of 1 per cent.

''Our estimates of the total cost impact come out at $9.10 on average for Australian households,'' Mr Hatfield-Dodds said.

Most of this comes in a one-off hit, with a much smaller inflationary effect in the second year.

The Climate Institute, Choice and the Australian Council of Social Services have used the modelling to produce information packs and an online calculator to show what families can expect under the carbon tax and government assistance.

A family supporting two children on $45,000 a year would have $8.60 more in weekly costs, but gain $11.45 in support. A family on $80,000 a year with two children would be $1.95 a week better off and a family earning $300,000 a year would be $17.90 a week worse off.

Conserving energy in the home could generate savings of $12 per week or more.

Mark and Juliette Farnell, and their two sons Josh, 13, and Ewan, 10, are a typical Melbourne family; he a camera operator, she the owner of a craft shop. Between them they earn $100,000 a year.

They will be $8 better off each week. This is $3 a week better than most people in their situation because, while Mark loves his motorbike, they have a 42-inch plasma TV as well as a Playstation, and the usual array of computers and mobile phones - this family is a model for energy savers.

By using timers, switching off appliances overnight, growing shade plants on hot walls instead of buying air conditioning and configuring their house smartly (including double glazing and solar panels on an extension) they have cut their energy bill from about $2000 a year to $350.

Energy reductions, particularly under a carbon tax, go straight back to the family budget in savings. ''We're not doing without,'' says Mark. ''We're not going back to a puritanical, Quaker existence by a long shot … it's just normal suburban stuff.''

They accept the climate science but began saving energy out of old-fashioned thrift.