Description: Estimates of the 1.5°C carbon budget vary widely among recent studies. One key contribution to this range is the non-CO2 climate forcing scenario uncertainty. Based on a partitioning of historical non-CO2 forcing, we show that there is currently a net negative non-CO2 forcing from fossil fuel combustion (FFC) mainly due to the co-emission of aerosols, and a net positive non-CO2 climate forcing from land-use change (LUC) and agricultural activities. We then perform a set of future simulations in which we prescribed a 1.5°C temperature stabilization trajectory, and diagnosed the resulting 1.5°C carbon budgets. Using the results of our historical partitioning, we prescribed changing non-CO2 forcing scenarios that are consistent with our model’s simulated decrease in FFC CO2 emissions. We compared the diagnosed carbon budgets from these idealized scenarios to those resulting from the default RCP scenario non-CO2 forcing, as well as from a scenario in which we assumed proportionality between future CO2 and non-CO2 forcing. We find a large range of carbon budget estimates across scenarios, with the largest budget emerging from the scenario with assumed proportionality of CO2 and non-CO2 forcing. Furthermore, our adjusted-RCP scenarios, in which the non-CO2 forcing is consistent with model-diagnosed FFC CO2 emissions, produced carbon budgets that are smaller than the corresponding default RCP scenarios. Our results suggest that ambitious mitigation scenarios will likely be characterized by an increasing contribution of non-CO2 forcing, and that an assumption of continued proportionality between CO2 and non-CO2 forcing would lead to an overestimate of the remaining carbon budget required to avoid low-temperature targets. Maintaining such proportionality under ambitious fossil fuel mitigation would require mitigation of non-CO2 emissions from agriculture and other non-FFC sources at a rate that is substantially faster than is found in the standard RCP scenarios.