Background and framingAt the Durban 2011 climate negotiations, it was decided 'to adopt a universal legal agreement on climate change as soon as possible, and no later than 2015' [1]. This decision thereby fails to agree measures to curb emissions commensurate with the global ambition of avoiding a 2°C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels. According to the IPCC Working Group III, future global temperatures can be limited to a 2-2.4°C rise above pre-industrial levels, but only if global emissions peak by 2015 [2]. Without a legally binding and widely adopted agreement by 2015, the most likely outcome is continued high emissions growth well beyond this, leaving little chance of remaining below the 2°C threshold [3][4][5]. The apparently conflicting messages emerging from the negotiations -that emissions must commensurate with avoiding 2°C [6], but that agreement will not be reached in time to achieve this-stress the importance of developing emission mitigation strategies that, at the same time, consider climate impacts and hence adaptation. A risk-averse strategy would frame adaptation by the most extreme global emission scenarios and mitigation by the lowest; for example, mitigate for 2°C, adapt for 4°C or higher [7]. Arguably, the reverse currently underpins climate policies -mitigation measures are more closely aligned with 4°C of warming [3,8], whilst adaptation research tends to focus on preparing for impacts associated with 2°C, largely because many emission scenarios will reach a 2°C warming around 2050. Addressing climate adaptation and mitigation in unison adds complexity but is essential in the case of the food system, where the climate has direct impacts on agricultural production. In this paper, bottom-up UK scenarios focused on the food system are used to infer global non-CO 2 emission pathways, by exploring different levels of mitigation and climate change impacts in the context of shifting levels and patterns of consumption. Understanding constraints on curbing non-CO 2 provides additional guidance for managing CO 2 budgets constrained to avoid a 2°C temperature rise. Background: GHG budgets highlight a need for urgency, yet analyses are often CO 2 -focused, with less attention paid to non-CO 2 . Results: In this paper, scenarios are used to explore non-CO 2 drivers and barriers to their mitigation, drawing out implications for CO 2 management. Results suggest that even optimistic technological and consumption-related developments lead to on-going increases in global N 2 O, largely to improve food security within a changing climate. This contrasts with existing analysis, where lower levels of N 2 O by 2050 are projected. Conclusions: As avoiding '2°C' limits the emissions budget, constraints on reducing non-CO 2 add pressure to energy system decarbonization. Overlooking how a changing climate and rising consumption restricts efforts to curb non-CO 2 will result in policies aiming to avoid 2°C falling short of the mark.© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis. This is an Open Acces...