[SilverBirch]

I think that basically what it's doing is saying "Here's all the energy that Britain consumes, divided by their total population". So sure, your electricity might only be 2100kWh, but did the government resurface a road nearby? Did you think about the fuel burned to transport the food you bought in the supermarket etc.

[dredmorbius]

This.

Similar to measures of mean national income (GDP/population) or other such aggregate measures.

Note that direct consumption is often a small fraction of total consumption, and household measures of consumption of one form of energy (e.g., MWh of annual electrical use) neglect not only the shares of commercial, industrial, and governmental usage, but of other forms such as natural gas and vehicle fuel.

[woeh]

That makes sense. The definition might get a bit fuzzy when you have to account for the energy use of producing imported products, but I probably am getting a bit pedantic at this point. The overall point The article tries to make - poorer countries need more energy to get out of poverty - seems good.

[SilverBirch]

Yeah, I think the whole thing about being modelled on Britain is deeply flawed - be like Britain, have a relatively small population in a temperate climate with lots of coast line for off-shore wind and tidal energy, and off-shore all your heavy manufacturing processes.

Who is going to tell Floridians they need to be like Britain and turn off their AC?

[pbhjpbhj]

We've over populated the planet, surely, we would otherwise have the option to readily move to an area with more suitable climate and plenty of space for refugees.