Erratum: All options, not silver bullets, needed to limit global warming to 1.5 °C: a scenario appraisal (Environmental Research Letters (2021) 16 (064037) DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/abfeec)

In the original version of this paper, the papers by Höglund-Isaksson et al (2020) and Ocko et al (2021) were erroneously interpreted, leading to an incorrect estimate of the medium upper bound for methane emissions reductions. After revisiting these two papers, we have revised our expert opinion on the upper bound for a ‘realistic’ methane emissions reduction in 2050 compared to 2018 from 54% (as in our original paper) to 48%, based on the ‘technically feasible’ scenario in Ocko et al (2021). As in the original justification of the medium upper bound, this scenario is a bottom up assessment of feasible methane emissions reductions, without taking into account demand-side changes. The high upper bound, adopted from van Vuuren et al (2018), does account for demand-side changes (i.e. shift in dietary preferences away from meat). This change has a very minimal effect on the findings of the paper. Nevertheless, it does result in small changes to several of the main and supplementary figures, as well as small changes to some secondary numbers. The result remains unchanged that none of the scenarios considered use all levers at reasonable levels. The changes affect figures 2–4 and 6 of the main text and figures S2(a) and S3 of the supplement. They also affect tables S1–S3.