Author Correction: Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate objectives.

In this Letter, in "About 75% of this reduction is expected to come from emission reductions and the remaining 25% from land use, land-use change and forestry", '25%' should read '1%' and '75%' should read '99%'. In the sentence "The carbon-sink-maximizing portfolio has a small negative effect on annual precipitation (-2 mm) and no effect on air temperature (Table 1)" the word 'precipitation' was omitted. Denmark was accidentally deleted during the conversion of Fig. 1. The original Letter has been corrected online.

Trade-offs in using European forests to meet climate objectives.

The Paris Agreement promotes forest management as a pathway towards halting climate warming through the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions1. However, the climate benefits from carbon sequestration through forest management may be reinforced, counteracted or even offset by concurrent management-induced changes in surface albedo, land-surface roughness, emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds, transpiration and sensible heat flux2-4. Consequently, forest management could offset CO2 emissions without halting global temperature rise. It therefore remains to be confirmed whether commonly proposed sustainable European forest-management portfolios would comply with the Paris Agreement-that is, whether they can reduce the growth rate of atmospheric CO2, reduce the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, and neither increase the near-surface air temperature nor decrease precipitation by the end of the twenty-first century. Here we show that the portfolio made up of management systems that locally maximize the carbon sink through carbon sequestration, wood use and product and energy substitution reduces the growth rate of atmospheric CO2, but does not meet any of the other criteria. The portfolios that maximize the carbon sink or forest albedo pass only one-different in each case-criterion. Managing the European forests with the objective of reducing near-surface air temperature, on the other hand, will also reduce the atmospheric CO2 growth rate, thus meeting two of the four criteria. Trade-off are thus unavoidable when using European forests to meet climate objectives. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that if present-day forest cover is sustained, the additional climate benefits achieved through forest management would be modest and local, rather than global. On the basis of these findings, we argue that Europe should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change. The modest climate effects from changes in forest management imply, however, that if adaptation to future climate were to require large-scale changes in species composition and silvicultural systems over Europe5,6, the forests could be adapted to climate change with neither positive nor negative  climate effects.

Future premature mortality due to O3, secondary inorganic aerosols and primary PM in Europe--sensitivity to changes in climate, anthropogenic emissions, population and building stock.

Air pollution is an important environmental factor associated with health impacts in Europe and considerable resources are used to reduce exposure to air pollution through emission reductions. These reductions will have non-linear effects on exposure due, e.g., to interactions between climate and atmospheric chemistry. By using an integrated assessment model, we quantify the effect of changes in climate, emissions and population demography on exposure and health impacts in Europe. The sensitivity to the changes is assessed by investigating the differences between the decades 2000-2009, 2050-2059 and 2080-2089. We focus on the number of premature deaths related to atmospheric ozone, Secondary Inorganic Aerosols and primary PM. For the Nordic region we furthermore include a projection on how population exposure might develop due to changes in building stock with increased energy efficiency. Reductions in emissions cause a large significant decrease in mortality, while climate effects on chemistry and emissions only affects premature mortality by a few percent. Changes in population demography lead to a larger relative increase in chronic mortality than the relative increase in population. Finally, the projected changes in building stock and infiltration rates in the Nordic indicate that this factor may be very important for assessments of population exposure in the future.