Does the IPCC says we need carbon prices of $135 to $6000 per ton of CO2 by 2030? No. Here's why...

First, because the IPCC is a source of information, it doesn't say we need to do anything. So please phrase your strawman question better, Noah. Second...

the IPCC 1.5C report says that modeling results from the literature show carbon prices of $135-$6050 corresponding to below 1.5C scenarios....

Isn’t that basically the same as IPCC saying we need carbon prices of $135-$6050 if we want a 1.5C pathway? Definitely not. For 2 reasons, both found on the same page of the report...

1. IPCC notes that the models tend to focus just on carbon pricing. Of course, nobody who’s thought seriously about climate says a carbon price alone is the “right” policy mix (even Econ 101 reasoning rejects this)...

2. IPCC notes that high carbon prices come from models "with limited flexibility of substituting fossil fuels with low carbon technologies” (etc.). A nice way of saying these models have wildly unrealistic assumptions about innovation (i.e. very little happens over a long period)

Alternatively, if we aren’t thrust into a clean energy dark ages and technological progress continues, similar emissions pathways can be achieved with much lower carbon prices, and lower still when a broad range of policies are used...

In sum, not only is IPCC not saying we need carbon prices of $135 to $6000/ton, the IPCC report really isn't saying anything to policymakers about the carbon prices needed for consistency with desired emissions pathway...

You’d want a very different methodology to help policymakers figure out what carbon prices they need to get on desired emissions pathways. Something like the Near Term to Net Zero approach proposed on our recent @NatureClimate paper. Have a look! /end https://rdcu.be/b6jIH