Is the word "global" doing important work here? Because it seems like in order to use on the order of all the energy that falls on the earth from the sun (which is what I understand the Kardashev scale to be talking about), our civilization would have to spread out significantly throughout the solar system. Either using all the solar energy directly so that none is available to the biosphere, or not doing that but ~doubling the amount of energy used at the earth's surface by for example lots of nuclear reactors, seems like it would have bad effects. (I imagine this as broadly similar to building a giant magnifying glass or set of mirrors that doubles solar radiation hitting the earth - seems bad.)

@equinoxhq
Thank you for your comment!
I agree that the term "global" might imply limitations that don't fully encompass the scale of energy harnessing required for a Type I civilization.
I will change the title since broadening the question's scope seems more appropriate to reflect the vastness of energy sources beyond Earth.

@Latte_Horse Ok, cool. Next question: what counts as "humanity"?

I envision a possible future with a lot of pretty autonomous space-robots out doing stuff in the solar system, probably with intelligence approaching or exceeding human level, but different from human minds. Maybe on behalf of humanity, maybe not.

In the extreme case, would you count an earth-originating AI that decided to keep Earth as a nature preserve, killing most but not all humans to restore diversity to the biosphere, and then starting to build a Dyson sphere around the sun or something, as us getting to Kardashev 1?

In a less extreme case, let's say humanity decides to build a Dyson sphere, but this is accomplished by humanity telling GPT-33 "please go build us a Dyson sphere" and then leaving it to do all the work because space is hard. Whatever asteroid mining or refining GPT-33 does sure does take a ton of energy, but humanity is minimally involved, just sort of watches the sun go gradually darker.

Not trying to be difficult, just anticipating you-in-2060 going "I mean yes a lot of energy is being used by machines, the first of which got to space via earth-originating rocket, but this isn't what I meant..." Or maybe that is what you meant, or close enough, in which case, sure, let's bet on that.

Current yearly energy consumption is 1.8 * 10^17 Wh (https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption).

Approximately 1.1 * 10^17 W of solar energy reaches Earth (https://www.quora.com/How-much-solar-energy-reaches-the-Earth), which translates into 9.6 * 10^20 Wh per year. But realistically, it's impossible to make all of this energy useful due to thermodynamic limitations.

Maybe it would make sense to make a resolution criteria based on some specific amount of energy being used, like 5 * 10^20 Wh per year? It would be easier to verify than scientific consensus regarding "all" of the energy available to Earth?

@OlegEterevsky

Good point!
I agree that setting a specific goal like 5 * 10^20 Wh per year could indeed provide a clearer benchmark for reaching a Type I civilization status, making the resolution more straightforward.
I will update the description.
However, as you mentioned, advancements in technology could potentially increase the amount of solar energy we can harness, affecting our total energy consumption capabilities. This dynamic aspect of technological progress means our targets might need to be adaptable to future advancements.
Currently, I think it is a great indication of humanity's stage on the Kardashev scale.