To understand the importance of methane on the levels of carbon emission reductions required to achieve temperature goals, a processed-based approach is necessary rather than reliance on the transient climate response to emissions. We show that plausible levels of methane (CH4) mitigation can make a substantial difference to the feasibility of achieving the Paris climate targets through increasing the allowable carbon emissions. This benefit is enhanced by the indirect effects of CH4 on ozone (O3). Here the differing effects of CH4 and CO2 on land carbon storage, including the effects of surface O3, lead to an additional increase in the allowable carbon emissions with CH4 mitigation. We find a simple robust relationship between the change in the 2100 CH4 concentration and the extra allowable cumulative carbon emissions between now and 2100 (0.27 ± 0.05 GtC per ppb CH4). This relationship is independent of modelled climate sensitivity and precise temperature target, although later mitigation of CH4 reduces its value and thus methane reduction effectiveness. Up to 12% of this increase in allowable emissions is due to the effect of surface ozone. We conclude early mitigation of CH4 emissions would significantly increase the feasibility of stabilising global warming below 1.5 °C, alongside having co-benefits for human and ecosystem health.

In the version of this Article originally published, a parallelization coding problem, which meant that a subset of model grid cells were subjected to erroneous updating of atmospheric gas concentrations, resulted in incorrect calculation of atmospheric CO2 for these grid cells, and therefore underestimation of the carbon uptake by land through vegetation growth and eventual increases to soil carbon stocks. Having re-run the simulations using the corrected code, the authors found that the original estimates of the impact of the natural wetland methane feedback were overestimated. The permafrost and natural wetland methane feedback requires lower permissible emissions of 9–15% to achieve climate stabilization at 1.5 °C, compared with the original published estimate of 17–23%. The Article text, Table 1 and Fig. 3 have been updated online to reflect the revised numerical estimates. The Supplementary Information file has also been amended, with Supplementary Figs 6, 7, 8 and 9 replaced with revised versions produced using the corrected model output. As the strength of feedbacks remain significant, still require inclusion in climate policy and are nonlinear with global warming, the overall conclusions of the Article remain unchanged.

Global methane emissions from natural wetlands and carbon release from permafrost thaw have a positive feedback on climate, yet are not represented in most state-of-the-art climate models. Furthermore, a fraction of the thawed permafrost carbon is released as methane, enhancing the combined feedback strength. We present simulations with an inverted intermediate complexity climate model, which follows prescribed global warming pathways to stabilization at 1.5 or 2.0 °C above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100, and which incorporates a state-of-the-art global land surface model with updated descriptions of wetland and permafrost carbon release. We demonstrate that the climate feedbacks from those two processes are substantial. Specifically, permissible anthropogenic fossil fuel CO2 emission budgets are reduced by 17–23% (47–56 GtC) for stabilization at 1.5 °C, and 9–13% (52–57 GtC) for 2.0 °C stabilization. In our simulations these feedback processes respond more quickly at temperatures below 1.5 °C, and the differences between the 1.5 and 2 °C targets are disproportionately small. This key finding holds for transient emission pathways to 2100 and does not account for longer-term implications of these feedback processes. We conclude that natural feedback processes from wetlands and permafrost must be considered in assessments of transient emission pathways to limit global warming.

Scenarios that limit global warming to below 2 °C by 2100 assume significant land-use change to support large-scale carbon dioxide (CO₂) removal from the atmosphere by afforestation/reforestation, avoided deforestation, and Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS). The more ambitious mitigation scenarios require even greater land area for mitigation and/or earlier adoption of CO₂ removal strategies. Here we show that additional land-use change to meet a 1.5 °C climate change target could result in net losses of carbon from the land. The effectiveness of BECCS strongly depends on several assumptions related to the choice of biomass, the fate of initial above ground biomass, and the fossil-fuel emissions offset in the energy system. Depending on these factors, carbon removed from the atmosphere through BECCS could easily be offset by losses due to land-use change. If BECCS involves replacing high-carbon content ecosystems with crops, then forest-based mitigation could be more efficient for atmospheric CO₂ removal than BECCS.

Understanding uncertainties in land cover projections is critical to investigating land-based climate mitigation policies, assessing the potential of climate adaptation strategies and quantifying the impacts of land cover change on the climate system. Here, we identify and quantify uncertainties in global and European land cover projections over a diverse range of model types and scenarios, extending the analysis beyond the agro-economic models included in previous comparisons. The results from 75 simulations over 18 models are analysed and show a large range in land cover area projections, with the highest variability occurring in future cropland areas. We demonstrate systematic differences in land cover areas associated with the characteristics of the modelling approach, which is at least as great as the differences attributed to the scenario variations. The results lead us to conclude that a higher degree of uncertainty exists in land use projections than currently included in climate or earth system projections. To account for land use uncertainty, it is recommended to use a diverse set of models and approaches when assessing the potential impacts of land cover change on future climate. Additionally, further work is needed to better understand the assumptions driving land use model results and reveal the causes of uncertainty in more depth, to help reduce model uncertainty and improve the projections of land cover.