Here's a good thread on the paper and what it really looks at and what it finds. https://bsky.app/profile/emildimanchev.bsky.social/post/3l2kvb242gb22
(If you read the thread in the account setting "experimental thread layout", don't forget to click into the last post displayed. The thread continues, but the experimental setting doesn't indicate that.)
Emil looks in particular at [one author's claim in the PIK news release and] the newspaper claims that CO2pricing were the winner in the study on effectiveness of climate policy https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl6547 .
He explains how the analysis approach fundamentally doesn't allow for this conclusion at all.
(And I am not surprised that one of the authors has the audacity to claim it had. That's economists for you – what else can one expect.)
If one desperately WANTS to pull a message regarding CO2price from the paper, it's this:
CO2price was in those big policy packages which were followed by some emission reductions. (I wouldn't even dare to say "which resulted in reductions". In part due to the 3 economic crises in the analysis window).
And who put the CO2price in bigger policy packages? Mainstream economists did, the neoliberal ideologists who advise governments everywhere by now.
People with more wits added other tools to policy packages that resulted in some reductions.
But all of it was too slow, too little, too incremental, not enough. Incrementalism doesn't cut it. It says precisely that in papers by real scientists, eg the Hothouse paper in 2018 by Will #Steffen , Jon Schellnhuber et al.
No country should now try and repeat a policy mix. We don't have time for trial and error anymore. And no country should listen to mainstream economists anymore. Ever.