I would point to a few things.
The first thing I should note is that the study we released lays out various scenarios. There is a lot of uncertainty around the effects of climate change and the associated risks, and we don't have the ability to make those predictions. However, having scenarios to assess those risks is extremely helpful and important.
The scenarios were based on the risks stemming from the transition to a zero-carbon economy, but the scenarios do not include physical risks, such as more frequent storms and droughts. We will nevertheless take those risks into account at a later stage.
Recent events have brought to light another aspect, time frames. Even our scenarios take into account time frames for initiating the climate transition. As Ms. Rogers pointed out, delaying policies is more costly.
That said, the scenarios are probably overly optimistic because the modelling includes assumptions for climate policy and forecasts. Under the scenarios, investments in new energy sources will become accessible as investments in oil drop, and coordination isn't really a problem.
Throughout the world, energy security is becoming increasingly important, but it isn't clear that supply will be able to meet demand.
We have a great deal of modelling work to do in terms of a scenario that involves weak coordination.