What the article is kinda saying is that these "extreme positive incentives for change" (EPICs) that are labelled political/structural instruments lie outside monetary economics and so hint towards level 5 and 4 changes, to system rules and to self-organisational motives. I still don't get, if so, how? And if so, why not apply both?
But ultimately changing system goals away from consumerism might be the gift everyone wants. I know many bored people who want to feel like they're part of big change, what Alexis De Tocqueville called "restive fervour" in early America - in British parlance being "up for it".
If economists exacerbate climate problems it is by the tepidity of their vision. I think we have forgotten as a society truly grand ambition. The Panama canal. The Hoover Dam. The dykes of Nederlands. US post-war Apollo Project. The Channel Tunnel. Imagine human action at scale, not as ungrateful entitled protest, but coordinated and purposeful action in the face of climate change. What would that look like? If we can't even imagine it then we're truly lost.
In the shadow of the pandemic and Russo-Ukraine war I think we'll have an opportunity, and to avoid unrest maybe a necessity, for bold, crazy-ass projects whose ROI can just be written off to posterity - what William James called the "Moral Equivalent of War", not as mere National Service, but as Global Service. Literally pay people salaries to fight climate change.
Of course that would require a strategy backed up by good science. But realising that monetary economics and "markets" isn't the only way out would be a good step. The Economist article hints and plays with that, and then backs off.