What should be discarded is the idea, prevalent in the mainstream media worldwide and even at the UN, that charging for the social cost of carbon and its “offsetting” can replace public planning for socio-technological transition.
I think the argument being made here, is that just having a price by itself it's a gross oversimplification about what is needed.
And just because a price has been useful in places where you have seen a transition away from fossil fuel use, it doesn't mean you should start with a price.
The price is the thing that comes in once you have a clear alternative to the fossil-powered default, to make it less attractive.