"Based on what we’ve seen in in British Columbia and California, a carbon pricing mechanism only works to reduce emissions alongside a strong emissions cap, strong regulations, strong performance standards, and strong enforcement."
It's not clear to me from this sentence if the authors think the BC carbon tax is working or not, but the NYT seems to think it's working, at least until they froze the tax rate:
"If, a decade from now, emissions have significantly decreased in Washington, then revenues from this new tax on emissions will have decreased as well"
Which is why the measure explicitly escalates the tax rate over time! Moreover "shortfall in revenue" is infinitely preferable to "water shortages and mass extinction".