That's a very interesting question.
I was referring to a Financial Times article raising the question of whether 1.5° is still within range. The reason is that when you look at global emissions, we have to peak by 2025 in order to get on that target, that path. That said, every 0.1° after 1.5° has significant impacts. We can see in IPCC reports that the difference between 2° and 1.5° is enormous in terms of physical impacts around the world, with the loss of coral reefs and so forth.
I wouldn't say I'm pessimistic on getting to net zero, but I would say there's a broadly recognized need for urgency and for engagement at a national level to think about how it can be done, knowing that it will be challenging, and not to sugar-coat it.