It challenges claims that tackling climate change would trigger an exponential rise in the cost to consumers.

ClimateWorks Australia, a partnership between Monash University and the philanthropic Myer Foundation, examined the size and cost of potential emissions cuts in 54 areas. It found nearly a third of the cuts would save the community money, largely through improved energy efficiency in commercial buildings, industry and transport. The savings could help offset the expensive transformation of the electricity sector from ''dirty'' coal to cleaner energy forms.

ClimateWorks executive director Anna Skarbek said the cut would require a carbon price, as proposed by the government, and targeted ''direct action'', championed by the opposition.

Ms Skarbek said it could be made using existing technology and without changing lifestyles or the mix of businesses that contribute to the economy. The cost would not be extraordinary - about the same as the cost of a cup of coffee a week for each home. ''The plan shows there are many opportunities for emission reductions to be made at low cost or with a net economic benefit to society. We hope [the report] is a pleasant surprise to business,'' she said.

The report, Low Carbon Growth Plan for Australia, builds on the ''cost curve'' modelling of consultant McKinsey & Company in 2008, but gives more detail about where cuts can be made.

The most profitable cuts would come through retrofitting commercial and industrial buildings with efficient equipment and appliances.

Other easy and cost-effective savings included lifting vehicle fuel efficiency by about a third to bring cars into line with European standards, and reducing tillage and improving fertiliser management to cut emissions from cropland soil.

The most expensive cuts were in the power sector: building gas and coal-fired power stations with carbon capture and storage technology - technically feasible, but not yet economically viable - and large-scale solar photovoltaic plants.