diff --git a/analysis/paper/.~lock.paper.docx# b/analysis/paper/.~lock.paper.docx#
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..90de0775be82e7756a471c976a96d2e42422ffff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/analysis/paper/.~lock.paper.docx#
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+,jaccard,jaccard-Latitude-E6440,28.01.2021 08:58,file:///home/jaccard/.config/libreoffice/4;
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/analysis/paper/paper.Rmd b/analysis/paper/paper.Rmd
index 58275ccd2b22febf826260ebd9a19ed13bb65656..342961cae2ff132e4b139a2cf7c8155cf0104c55 100644
--- a/analysis/paper/paper.Rmd
+++ b/analysis/paper/paper.Rmd
@@ -621,7 +621,7 @@ Figure 3 also shows the inequality in geographical source of the household energ
 
 # Counterfactual: a 1.5°C compatible Europe
 
-Global 1.5°C compatible decarbonisation scenarios achieve a similar climate outcome with different assumptions about the transformation of energy supply and demand, from renewable capacity, deployment of carbon-capture-and-storage (CCS), to socio-technological demand transformation.
+Global 1.5°C compatible decarbonisation scenarios achieve a similar climate outcome with different assumptions about the transformation of energy supply and demand, from renewable capacity, deployment of carbon-capture-and-storage (CCS), to socio-technological demand transformation. Table 1 shows some final energy use results from six different decarbonisation scenarios, already adjusted from total GJ/capita to household GJ/adult equivalence. The original total GJ/capita scenario results are from different world regions (OECD, West EU, Global North, and Global), depending on the regional disaggregation of the publicly available scenario results, and so should not be interpreted as perfectly comparable with each other. For the purposes of our study, however, we are simply interested in the range of scenario results within which to situate our household footprint results, presented below in the ‘Inequality in a 1.5°C compatible Europe’ section and Figure 5.  
 
 ```{r}