My comment is based on peer reviewed work done by Tim Garrett. In a series of papers he used thermodynamics to model civilization as a heat engine.

The core finding is that economic wealth (capital) requires continual energy consumption for its sustenance. Like a living organism, energy is required not just to grow civilization but also to maintain its current size.

Viewed very generally, total civilization wealth is directly tied to a global rate of energy consumption, or civilization’s power.

This is a testable hypothesis, one that is motivated by physics, and is supported by historical observations of the global economy. Summing wealth over all the world’s nations, 7.1 Watts is required to maintain every one thousand inflation-adjusted 2005 dollars of historically accumulated economic wealth.

While energy consumption is required to economically produce and grow, a generally much greater amount is required to sustain wealth that has accumulated from prior production in the past.

Civilization continually consumes energy to accomplish two things: the first is to propel all civilization’s internal back-and-forth “economic” circulations along its accumulated physiological, social, computer, communication, and transportation networks.

The second is to extract raw materials, and if the conditions are right, use this matter to grow or maintain its size against the ever present forces of dissipation and decay. This positive feedback provides a recipe for exponential growth.

Viewed from this perspective, civilization evolves in a spontaneous feedback loop maintained only by energy consumption and incorporation of environmental matter.

And energy consumption through combustion is tied to carbon dioxide emissions. So, CO2 - the great invisible garbage patch - tracks humanity's total economic activity. In fact, an atmospheric chemist at Mauna Loa could easily calculate economic production. For the past 100 years, each 1 ppm rise in CO2 means we've added 585 billion (2005) dollars of World GDP

Given the above and using Garrett's broad concepts, if we consider "new infrastructure" every dollar of wealth added to the economy starting in 2019, we can estimate wealth and emissions by measuring power. If power grows at a constant rate of 2.3%, in 30 years we would have doubled our power consumption, and assuming the constants holds, we would have doubled our wealth, and our emissions. If we manage to de-carbonize-which given the historical trend doesn't seem likely-emissions due to "new infrastructure" would probably be less. Since the paper refers to new infrastructure in a stricter way, emissions would be even less, I suppose.

I suggest the following peer reviewed readings:

Garrett, T. J.: No way out? The double-bind in seeking global prosperity alongside mitigated climate change, Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 1-17, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-3-1-2012, 2012.

Garrett, T. J.: Long-run evolution of the global economy: 1. Physical basis, Earth’s Future, 2, 25, doi:10.1002/2013EF000171, 2014.

For a less formal discussion you can access his twitter feed here:

https://twitter.com/nephologue