Correction: Al-Jabir, M.; Isaifan, R.J. Long-Term Projection of Transport-Related Social Cost of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Qatar. Sustainability 2024, 16, 536

The authors would like to make the following corrections about the published paper [1]. The changes are as follows:

(1)

Replace the following sentence in the Abstract:

Furthermore, when comparing the scenario in which fuel economy is improved to the baseline scenario, the total SCC benefit would amount to USD 3,363,559

with

Furthermore, when comparing the scenario in which fuel economy is improved to the baseline scenario, the total SCC benefit would amount to USD 386,029,708.

(2)

The authors would like to update the carbon dioxide values for the 2030, 2040, 2050, and total columns. The total row should also be updated to reflect these changes. Therefore, we need to replace the original

Table 6. Reduction in GHG (in tons) from the improved fuel economy scenario compared to the baseline scenario.

GHG	2030	2040	2050	Total
Carbon Dioxide	76,904	401,468	1,517,588	1,995,960
Methane	24	125	471	620
Nitrous Oxide	1	4	13	18
Total	76,929	401,597	1,518,072	1,996,598

with the following:

(3)

Replace the following sentence in “Section 3.2. Improved Fuel Economy Scenario versus Baseline”:

The value of 77 GHGs per ton of CO₂ was derived from the data presented in Table 6, while USD 226 was obtained from Table 1.

with

The value of 76,904 GHGs per ton of CO₂ was derived from the data presented in Table 6, while USD 226 was obtained from Table 1.

(4)

The authors would like to update the decreased emissions per ton of CO₂, which will also affect the benefit of fuel economy shown in the figure. Therefore, we need to replace the original Figure 8 with the following:

(5)

The authors would like to update the carbon dioxide values for the 2030, 2040, 2050, and total columns. The total row should also be updated to reflect these changes. Therefore, we need to replace the original

Table 7. GHG emission benefit–cost analysis (2030–2050): improved fuel economy scenario vs. baseline scenario.

GHG	2030 (USD)	2040 (USD)	2050 (USD)	Total (USD)
Carbon Dioxide	15,130,600	75,405,628	292,512,981	383,049,209
Methane	60,925	363,062	1,503,051	1,927,038
Nitrous Oxide	59,941	234,451	759,069	1,053,461
Total	15,251,466	76,003,141	294,775,101	386,029,708

with the following:

(6)

Replace the following sentence in “Section 4.2. Improved Fuel Economy Scenario versus Baseline”:

Comparing the improved fuel economy scenario with the baseline scenario, the benefit of reducing all GHG emissions in 2030 is estimated to be USD 136,015; in 2040, it is estimated to be USD 672,831; and in 2050, is estimated to be USD 2,554,712. This leads to an estimate of the total benefit to be USD 3,363,559. By comparing the two scenarios, reducing carbon dioxide emissions during 2030, 2040, and 2050 will result in a total benefit of USD 383,060. Similarly, reducing methane emissions during the same period will result in a total benefit of USD 1,927,038, and reducing nitrous oxide emissions will yield a total benefit of USD 1,053,461. Thus, methane emissions have the most significant potential benefit compared to carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions.

with

Comparing the improved fuel economy scenario with the baseline scenario, the benefit of reducing all GHG emissions in 2030 is estimated to be USD 15,251,466; in 2040, it is estimated to be USD 76,003,141; and in 2050, is estimated to be USD 294,775,101. This leads to an estimate of the total benefit to be USD 386,029,708. By comparing the two scenarios, reducing carbon dioxide emissions during 2030, 2040, and 2050 will result in a total benefit of USD 383,049,209. Similarly, reducing methane emissions during the same period will result in a total benefit of USD 1,927,038, and reducing nitrous oxide emissions will yield a total benefit of USD 1,053,461. Thus, carbon dioxide emissions have the most significant potential benefit compared to methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

(7)

Replace the following sentence in “Section 5. Conclusions and Recommendations”:

Based on the findings, it can be determined that the public transport scenario versus baseline yields the highest social cost–benefit, with a total of USD 380,005,861. The second highest social cost–benefit is observed in the improved fuel economy scenario versus the public transport scenario, amounting to USD 5,980,883. Lastly, the improved fuel economy scenario versus baseline ranks third in terms of social cost–benefit, reaching a total of USD 3,363,559

with

Based on the findings, it can be determined that the improved fuel economy scenario versus baseline yields the highest social cost–benefit, with a total of USD 386,029,708. The second highest social cost–benefit is observed in the public transport scenario versus baseline scenario, amounting to USD 380,005,861. Lastly, the improved fuel economy scenario versus the public transport scenario ranks third in terms of social cost–benefit, reaching a total of USD 5,980,883.

The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.