She dealt superbly with the story of homo-economicus to date. She spelled out environmental degradation as the most significant challenge currently facing humankind. She highlighted economic inequality (of nations and individuals) and lack of progress on economic convergence. She recommended stronger and more co-operative global governance for the greater good of the global population it serves, eg in terms of climate change accords.
However, I've docked her a couple of marks because of a little fuzziness in her use of the word "sustainability" and a failure to recognise the need to challenge the economic mantra of "growth" and the consumerist nature of most of modern global society. More than once she used the expression "economic sustainability" and sometimes (seemingly interchangeably) "sustained economic growth". While she recommended the use of taxation (presumably pigovian taxes) to make the polluter pay (in the context of climate change) and provide funds for low or no-emission energy, she failed to give any recognition to strands of economics that ask us to consider whether a steady-state economy might be a better and more sustainable solution than the currently predominant growth-based economy.
I can't tell, from her talk, whether she entertains any such thoughts, or whether she is a died-in-the-wool "growthist" , as almost everyone in the mainstream public sphere is these days. Perhaps, even if she has any doubts about the wisdom of growthism in private, she might deem them too difficult to raise in public - after all, in times of crisis, public figures don't want to panic the publics they serve.
A transcript of the lecture can be found here (opens in new window)