This is good - but remember that "emissions" is already the first derivative of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. So what this article is saying is that the second derivative was ~35% lower than the average through the last decade.

What we need is to eventually have net zero emissions, after a period of having emissions low enough to be taken in by oceanic uptake and reforestation. So obviously we are far, far away from that goal. And there is very broad scientific consensus that we need to get there.

Negative second derivative is good, since it implies we won't have exponential runaway in CO2 concentration. But it is just the first step on the way there.