Ö÷²¥´óÐã

We're kicking off with negative campaigning, and first up we played a couple of negative ads from the current US mid-term elections. It seems to be everywhere, but is it acceptable.

From the US, John kicked of the debate saying it seems somehow worse this year, there seems to be nothing but negative ads on radio and television.

And from the UK, Kate emailed to say negative campaigning should be illegal. Candidates should only be allowed to speak about what THEY stand for and not why what another opponent stands for is bad. And form London, Gregg says negative campaigning reeks of desperation. The Republicans are doing so badly in the lead up to the mid-terms they're resorting to a pitiful smear campaign against the Democrat candidates.

Professor Rick Lau from Rutgers University has been saying that negative campaigns don't necessarily work better than positive ads, but if they're memorable, or funny, they get more attention.

Nina from Brooklyn says that in New Jersey, they have one of the tightest and most crucial senate races in the country. "Each candidate has provided me with a laundry list of why I should NOT vote for the other guy, but I'm still left clueless as to why I SHOULD vote for either one of them."

And James from Oxford, says "Perhaps if all these skeletons are exposed, future candidates that are clean, might actually win."

Negative campaigning is certainly big in the US, but what about elswhere? Three listeners joined us from the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has just had two rounds of voting in Presidential elections. Nmbongo thinks that politicians should see each other as opponents, and not enemies.

Presidential elections will also be taking place in Nicaragua soon. Claudia joined us from there, and said there is plenty of negativity in the campaigning there, but fortunately it has not spilled over into violence.

Professor Lau from Rutgers University came back into the conversation to say that while some personal attacks are below the belt, many questions about politicans' performance are fair game.

Raj in London joined us to say that negative campaigns don't put both sides of the argument - he said there should be live debates so both sides can air their views at the same time.

From Liberia, William emailed us to say "negative campaining is necessary and acceptable in politics. We saw it in our elections 6 month ago." And Monica says "here in Minneapolis our daily newspaper actually devotes a column to debunking all the ridiculous claims made by the negative ads produced by each party. Now I automatically assume both sides are lying."

Today, you also wanted to talk about the into climate change, which says we need to act now or face massive costs in the future. So who should be doing something about it? To kick off, we were joined by three experts to make their arguments for who is responsible for dealing with climate change.

Dr Benny Peiser from Liverpool John Moores University thinks that as a species we have always adapted to whatever the climate has thrown at us. He believes the best approach to the potential problems we may face in the future is to develop the infrastructure that allows us to cope with either hotter or colder climates. He doesn't believe governments, business or the individual is able to halt climate change.

Mike Childs from Friends of the Earth believes the richest countries in the world have created climate change. They are responsible for two-thirds of the climate change in the atmosphere. They have the responsibility in taking a lead. Governments can introduce standards to ensure that cars are cleaner, force energy companies to produce clean energy, provide financial & technological assistance needed by developing countries.

And Michael Buick from Climate Change says if we are really to save the planet this will mean each individual reducing their carbon emission. Also individuals should be putting pressure on our governments and leader. We all need to make lifestyle changes. Individuals need to reduce and offset their emissions.

So can individuals make enough of a difference? Moira joined us from the UK, to talk about the effects of climate change on her home of Kiribati, a group of atolls in the Pacific. She says governments of developed countries are responsible for doing something about global warming, because they are the ones who are most able to make a difference. She says her neighbours here in the UK perhaps aren't doing enough about climate change.

An anonymous texter says "it is important for every human on our planet to realise that a every drop of water makes an ocean,every body's contribution however small will help the environment."

And David from Kenya emailed us to share his view "that climate change is more important than poverty issues. If the climate worsens,then agriculture will be impacted negatively. Lets focus on it my dear Africans."

Also Mick in Zambia has called in to say, "The developed world is not actually that happy - both developing and developed world should work together to find a common solution. "

And more emails have come in - Krzysztof in Poland says "Americans! Stop choosing oilmen to represent you at the government!" And an anonymous message: "Global warming is no mystery any more, as the truth has come to light. Close collaboration of governments and businessmen will do more in coming up with solutions than individuals will."