Anthony, I think you missed the point of the question.
It is not a question about the first step.
It is a question about the last step.
ie what is the final result of Australia's effort ?
I can't remember exactly how many leading zeros but it was like this;

0.000041 C by 2050. At that level it doesn't matter much what we do.

and

Aaaahhhaa, no one has explained why the temperature rises first and
then the CO2 rises.

Re "why is Aus afraid of leading ?
Easy, because we are a small economy and can be easily run over by
much larger economies if we stick our neck out.

Scribbler;
Ships use less fuel per ton KM than even trains.

Actually Bazz, we're both wrong. Super ships use a huge amount and anyway the amount is irrelevant, it's the type of fuel they burn. Known as "bunker" fuel it is the filthiest and emits the most poisons known, and is forbidden to be used on land. Why do they use this? Because it is cheap and because they have enormous engines that can process it, unlike your average car or train.

Interestingly, come July 1st, any ship known to use bunker fuel from Iran will lose insurance. Amazing that a few sanctions can achieve what global warming science cannot. Of course, that's not to say they won't get the fuel elsewhere.

My mistake was saying that a single ship emits as much pollutants as all the cars in the world. It's around 16 ships apparently, however the gases they exhume are so toxic it might as well be one.

Thanks for the heads up though!

<<The philosophers point out, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step>>

I saw a variation on that the other day: “ a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step AND A ROAD MAP".

I see that it is time for bullsh1t bingo.

"incentivised"
"International example"
"moral"
"Journey begins with a single step"

Firstly most people in the world know little to nothing of what happens in Aus and care less.

Europe has $5 price on carbon on about 10% of emissions = an effective price of 50c. America has just about zero, China has zero. Australia shooting for $23 is not taking a single step, but trying to finish the marathon instantly.

Basic economics indicate that items with very low price elasticity such as energy show very little change in response to a price change. Businesses cannot rebuild over night, and if they close, their business will simply move overseas. The price of $23 is not enough to incentivise new technologies, but enough to hurt manufacturing.

Copenhagen killed the justification for the carbon price. The dinosaurs that are on a moral crusade and don't care for those going to be hurt are fortunately in a small minority.

Money get back
I'm alright Jack
Keep your hands of my stack.

New car, caviar, four star day dream
I think I'll by me a football team.

That's all AGW is all about.

Nothing to do with saving humanity.
Nothing to do with saving the environment.
Nothing to do with saving the future.

And everything to do with scamming money off anyone they can, rich and poor alike!

It's so sad so many have fallen for it!

"Basic economics indicate that items with very low price elasticity such as energy show very little change in response to a price change."

We're not talking about widgets.

I've replaced forty-odd halogen globes with LED globes bought from China and replaced a perfectly good pool pump with a new more efficient one. Both changes will for themselves in 15 months at today's power price, and now in shorter period since further large rises have been announced. What's my incentive. Does the CT reduce or add to it?

We need a system where government owns and maintains the grid that multiple energy providers can competitively feed into. I'll buy from the lowest bidder, which does not initially have to be big enough to service every grid user, but can potentially grow to be. Let's then see what happens to prices from coal-based providers. To maintain the grid, massive subsidies to current utilities can be unwound commensurately with the growth of new players. A suitably large CT adds incentive for the entry of low/zero emission providers, who can start small.

A CT incentivizes both consumers and providers towards lower emissions.

The price elasticity argument obviously applies to petrol/diesel/gas. No carbon price will be paid by motorists, other than indirectly through inputs to fuel provision to incentivize change but the spiralling cost of these fuels will. How can government help (or interfere, rather, if you are RawMustard)? By subsidizing hydrogen distribution systems, IMO, and removal of all cost impediments to the import or domestic production of fuel-cell driven transport