The robust carbon intensity of global primary energy

[Iterate]

3. I wonder what the minimum is to sustain life and limb.

Just a thought and a thought experiment.

Back when things were merely serious and David Wasdell was reminding everyone about tipping points, I half expected him to mention some kind of near-term global minimum, but he didn't. So I set out looking. Google has failed me (far, far too much noise in the results, I wonder if anyone else is having that problem). It matters because any collapse would set off secondary positive social feedbacks, like kicking population growth again, drone wars (either plonking the other guys coal plants or playing salt-the-earth with reactors), and futile efforts to build dams around coasts.

What I was thinking of was a number, either Mt/Ej or CO2 per capita, that would cover the necessities for life and transition but no more. No extra for new anything that isn't net zero CO2. No new third fridge, no new highways, no new sub-developments. Not even a fill at the Donut Castle Pit Stop. Sorry.

Not that I'm an extremist: grow the food, teach the kids, heat the house. Hospital bedsheets still get steamed regardless of the source, that sort of thing.

Given that a number like that is really, really unfun to calculate, what if we take the current world average of 4.8 Mtons per capita and make that the new (temporary)maximum. Nations at that level now are doing well enough, living without famine or pestilence. The EU is at about 7.5-8.5, so that's a reasonable task. Qatar wouldn't know what to do with itself. North America would throw a major temper tantrum. Sorry.

I'd hoped to add some totals here, but have run out of daylight, so for now I can only ask the question:

Would that be enough? How much time would it buy us? Or does the (temporary) maximum have to be halved immediately?