<i>Some researchers have addressed energy decadence in a similar way, calculating a maximum acceptable standard of living. For example, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology proposed the 2,000 watt society, which implies a worldwide energy use per capita of per 1,500 kgoe per year, while the Global Commons Institute’s Contraction and Convergence proposal limits energy use to 1,255 kgoe per person per year. These levels of energy use per capita correspond to a reduction of 20-35% below the world average today.</i><p>This article repeatedly conflates emissions reduction with energy use reduction. Yes, emissions and energy are intimately linked as long as energy comes primarily from fossil combustion. But cutting global fossil combustion by 35% is not sufficient to stabilize atmospheric CO2 levels. And if we can manage the necessary work to deeply reduce use of fossil combustion for energy, cutting energy use itself is not necessary. Cutting global energy use by 35% is neither sufficient nor necessary to reach the goal of sustainable anthropogenic greenhouse gas net emissions.<p>It's an interesting article but it is either a pure academic exercise or predicated on outdated assumptions that non-fossil energy will be very expensive, forcing energy use cuts over source-substitution. It's like an article about reducing lead exposure, written circa 1960, that presumes we must cut gasoline consumption to cut lead exposure, because cars that run without any lead in gasoline are unthinkable.