The article talks about successful interventions. It's problematic that the article doesn't put this in context: no specific events or policies are visible in t

The article talks about successful interventions. It's problematic that the article doesn't put this in context: no specific events or policies are visible in the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere since records began. It's a smooth up-and-to-the-right line with slowly increasing acceleration. https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png Things you might intuitively expect to be visible but aren't: • COVID lockdowns (i.e. aviation shutdown). • Germany's phaseout of nuclear power and return to lignite. • The collapse of the USSR. • Any kind of global climate agreement. • The explosion of cheap air travel. • The enormous drop in solar/wind costs in the 2010s. • Chinese adoption of capitalism and consequent industrialization in the 1990s. If even global lockdowns had no impact on CO2 levels it's fair to say there are no actual or conceivable government policies that will be successful at reducing emissions any time soon. The authors of this paper aren't going to mention that though, otherwise examining 1500 different government policies might seem a bit pointless and the discussion would have to move to adaptation, which they don't like conceptually.