Who says so?
A certain Lord Redesdale of the all-party parliamentary climate change group.
"We can either heat our homes and have hot baths, or fly but not both. There really does need to be much tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes."
Of course, when he says "we" he means you and me - not him. I really can't imagine his Lordship giving up his hot bath and foreign holidays - sorry, I mean fact-finding missions to the Caribbean - can you?
What is all this about? "Tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes"? That sounds suspiciously like compulsion to me - i.e. we (the ruling elite) have to force you (the mug electorate) to use less energy because we (the ruling elite) can't be arsed to have an effective energy policy.
So we're going to be forced to use less energy - and for what? Man's CO2 contribution is but a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere naturally - and Britain's contribution to that drop is negligible. If everyone in Britain stopped producing C)2 tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever - so why are we to be forced to use less energy?
The answer, of course, is that it isn't about using less energy - it's about raising more money through taxation. We'll be forced to use less by being taxed more on the energy we do use - one way or another.
Partly it will be through the general taxation - money taken from the taxpayer to pay for the largely useless and heavily subsidised wind farms which are not economically viable without huge subsidies from the state.
And then they'll be the money raised through indirect taxation - taxes or costly requirements placed on energy suppliers which they will recoup by charging us more for using less energy which is increasingly unavailable when we need it anyhow.
And all this for what? An imagined problem that exists only in the minds of "green" fools and the computer programs of climate models and which real world data tells us does not exist.