Thanks for bringing some sensible debate, Louise, and some interesting problems with the bill you've flagged up. I must admit I'd only read the page on Wikipedia, which erroneously stated an 80% target on the current draft bill. There's clearly a lot of work still to go in to the bill before it can be presented to Parliament, and I hope the issues you raise are dealt with.

Peter, I don't understand how you can be so incredibly selfish - I've not read one positive suggestion, or even endorsement of a suggestion, to combat climate change - do you just not care about our planet's future, with a "not my problem" attitude, or do you not think climate change is happening. Either way you're bang out of line, and I suggest you go and do some research, and grow a conscience.

You've made it extremely clear how you feel about our Labour government throughout these boards... maybe it's time to engage in a more positive way. Forget, for a moment, all your grievances with Labour, and try to make some real, positive comment on how we can combat climate change, which is what this debate is about, rather than the EU or FSA or anything else.

The reason I called you selfish is that every time anyone else has made a positive comment engaging with climate change (whether supporting the government or not), you have responded by ridiculing them. Do you realise that this is a huge, pressing issue which won't just go away?

I suppose you have a better way of making sure things are recycled than legislation? Try being a little less negative and belligerent every once in a while, you might feel happier.

Not every law needs the kind of measures you seem to think - just giving people a wheelie bin that's a quarter of the size and then a bunch of appropriate recycling bins to make up for the lost space. People don't need to be traced on their sorting of rubbish, it all gets checked on collection, and if someone ends up with a bunch of rubbish left on their doorstep, they'll probably learn to sort it a little better. We're mostly intelligent people, I'm sure we can manage to figure out "plastics in the green box, paper in the purple box," etc.

To be honest Lewis, I agree with you on all of that, but with the Climate Change Bill, the government are already doing that. The balancing act it has, with things like airport expansion, is reducing carbon emissions without completely destroying business growth - that does not mean allowing business to do as it pleases, but also not restricting it to the point that businesses can't work any more.

As you say government needs to curb the reckless activities of companies, and I'd add that they need to encourage good practice, through systems of tax and subsidy. The government must aim to make it economically more viable to be environmentally responsible than irresponsible.

Peter, you've somewhat expanded on the scope of what I was writing about. While I'm very sorry to hear about the trouble in your business, my point about jobs was that with greater focus on climate change, a new industry will grow, researching and developing cleaner power and cleaner techniques for other industries. I fully agree with you that public transport is in a state generally (I marvel when I use the London transport system - the ability to get anywhere in London, 24 hours a day, by bus is incredible - but London is only 10% of the UK, and in the other 90% transport is (and has been since I started using it) shockingly expensive and infrequent. It needs to be dealt with, and I have no doubt it will be through climate change legislation, but it's not simple for central government to effect local change through all our Tory and Lib Dem councils who oppose and minimise change at every turn. I'm not suggesting we go back to the central control Thatcher seized, but we need to remember that change is not simple, and cannot be effectively made overnight.

On your point about employment law and tribunals, try coming at it from the other point of view - that of your employees. It's tough looking for work, and when you find it, you want some kind of stability. If you lose your job, perhaps unfairly you can face significant financial hardship, especially in cities like London. These laws are in place to make employers think harder about getting rid of staff, and to make it fairer for those on the receiving end. We clearly don't share the same politics, but I'd like to appeal to your sense of fairness - employees livelihoods should not be subject to the whim of their employers. You speak of your business associate as if he was slapped with an unavoidable fine, but we both know that's not true - if she was grossly incompetent, or if the post was no longer necessary, the tribunal would have found in his favour. What would it have cost him to give her another chance, and be more careful with her livelihood, then if she really was not the right person for the job fire her a little more carefully a fortnight later? Less than £15,000 I'd suspect.

You're clearly concerned about building housing in green belts - though it's not ideal, where else would you build it? Guildford has this problem - the Tory council won't approve new housing, because it'll bring the general market value down slightly from its ridiculously inflated level, and then those same Tories and Tory voters...and moan about central government when their little Jessica or Jeremy can't afford a house in the area.

Much new house building is on brownfield sites and flood plains, and people complain about that too because they aren't the best places for new housing, but new houses need to go somewhere as our population is growing. Please don't start saying that we should "stop immigration" or anything like that - as a businessman yourself, you must realise that the market needs our migrant workers (though they do need more rights and protection than they have now) since they do the jobs many Brits won't, and do them well. New houses need to go somewhere, and they need to be in places that people want to live - particularly the south west. If not some on greenbelt land, then where?

You're right to an extent, education is important, but it's only part of a real plan of action. We can (and do) teach our children about the problems with climate change, but the effect that really has is offset by 20-30 years. We can't afford to sit back and hope that it won't have become too bad (as if it's not already) by then, and leave it for the next generation to sort out. Education of adults is far more difficult - people need a reason to care and "I'll save money if I do this economically" is a pretty good one for most people. Remember that incentives cost money - to make a tax exemption on efficient cars (and there already is one in the form of road tax, I believe) cost money, which has to be regained from somewhere, and the most honest place to take it from is the taxing less efficient cars out there.

On employment law, you're right again, to an extent - employers should be (and are) able to fire incompetent staff - but it should not be so easy as you might like. While many employers respect their workforce, and are decent in their dealings with them, there are also many more who view the workforce with contempt and would (and have in the past) fire people without good reason or thought for their welfare, thinking only of cutting costs for themselves.

I disagree with you on business and the FSA - all of these rules, regs and authorities are about protecting the average citizen from companies who are fundamentally out to screw them over for their cash. The FSA and other similar bodies help avoid anyone losing huge amounts of money due to the more extreme of unscrupulous practices - while the industry may like to think it is good at "freezing out" these more immoral companies, that takes time and is reactive not proactive - how many people must lose money before the company is forced out?

On Europe, you've not really said why you dislike the EU, beyond "not trusting its motives". Do you really know enough about it to reject it so completely? I know I don't, and most of what I do know is pretty positive for the country. Is it just nationalist pride in our own currency (not necessarily a bad thing, but not really a good reason for rejecting the idea of the EU altogether), or do you have more specific reasons? I've found there are loads of great little things the EU does - unified car insurance in Europe, anti-monopoly work, limits on cost increases for mobiles on european networks (coming in), freedom to work, reside, and vote throughout the EU, mobility of labour, and the list goes on. The country and the economy would undeniably suffer if we left the EU, even from our current form of membership with limitations on anything the country doesn't understand because of Rupert Murdoch's undermining of the whole idea. Go on, have a think, why do you really not like the EU?

Business, NHS:
I'm sorry, but whatever legislation you don't like, we are doing so, so much better now than we were in '97. We have a stable, strong economy, without the boom-bust of the Tory years. We have an NHS which is no longer splitting at the seams, with hundreds dying on waiting lists. There is a problem of over management of the NHS, which needs to be carefully addressed, but that is so, so much better than having people we love; mothers, daughters, brothers, sisters, sons, dying unnecessarily on an NHS waiting list, just because taxes were too low to run our world-class health service. Over-management isn't ideal, but of the two I know which I prefer, and I'd bet that most of the country would agree with me.

The FSA is a good thing, and you need to accept that. It may be an inconvenience for businesses seeking maximum profit with no moral consideration for their actions, but for those people who suffer because of the actions of huge corporations, the FSA has been a financial lifesaver - at some point you have to accept that other people's financial wellbeing comes before that bit more profit you could make if you were unregulated.

Transport:
I think we're pretty close to agreeing here. Public transport should be both good enough and affordable (at the point of use) enough to be easy for everyone to use, all the time. Ideally, no-one living and working in a city or large town should need a car day-to-day (as we can see in London.) Obviously, to get to this point is going to be...expensive, particularly after the extreme under-investment in transport that we had under the Tories. In the last 10 years, the quality of public transport has dramatically increased, but that has come at a seriously increased cost at the point of use everywhere except London. Where should this money come from? Increased general taxation? Surely it would be far better to at the same time as raising money for public transport, discourage unnecessary car use, as is planned in the pay per mile car charging scheme? (incidentally, that scheme does not track car locations or times, it merely logs how many miles are driven on each class of road. It's interesting to see how many people get up in arms about that aspect, when their movements are already tracked by the mobile phone companies, who are far less trustworthy than our government.)

Ministers do not have much say in how they travel. There are certain police requirements for the vehicles used, and your average little fiesta isn't going to cut it, and nor would the PM be allowed to cycle to work. It is worth noting though, that the extremely inefficient (but very nice) Daimlers used under the Tories have been retired, and replaced with more efficient, newer cars. I see where you're coming from, but in this case they don't have much choice, which is a shame.)

Europe:
You've still not really answered my question, while I answered yours before you asked it. Let's go again, shall we?

I'm not a fool, I do realise that you are in a majority with your viewpoint on the EU - that doesn't mean the view is right or that it doesn't need justification, which is what I challenged you to give. I answered your question (but what about the man in the street what do we get? naf all) before you asked it:
unified car insurance in Europe, anti-monopoly work, limits on cost increases for mobiles on european networks (coming in), freedom to work, reside, and vote throughout the EU, mobility of labour, the list goes on.
I'll add to it now-

• we have a good number of democratically elected representatives to a European Parliament, who give us a real voice in European issues - we can lobby them, get our points and issues made before legislation is passed. This is far better than the alternative of letting our leaders just do what they like, with practically no accountability (because there will always be cooperation and collaboration of European governments and nations, and if there's no EP, it will just be down to leaders and ministers.)
• We can travel all over Europe without getting hundreds of different visas.
• Trade and business benefits from the single currency (the fact we are not a part of it makes things harder for our businesses, but that's our own fault, not the EU's.)
• Individuals can bring huge amounts of heavily taxed (at home) items back from the continent, tax-free, without hassle
• Different industries benefit from different agreements, like the common agricultural and fisheries policies - making division of resources and trade fairer throughout Europe and ensuring farmers don't lose out.

Our immigration policy has not changed hugely due to the EU - we have an influx of migrant workers from Poland and other eastern European countries, who are, generally speaking, extremely hard working and good for our economy - ask anyone who employs them. We do not have porous borders as a number of EU states do (which only applies to other EU citizens anyway.) Our immigration policy grants asylum to carefully checked asylum seekers, and immigration to carefully vetted skilled work seekers - british citizenship or even leave to remain is very difficult to get. There is a big issue with illegal immigration, but that isn't the same as the governments policy, it's a problem which is being dealt with, day in day out. I've not at any point denounced you as a racist, though I don't think you know how offensive some of your views really are - people are people, why does it really matter what country your neighbour's ancestors come from? None of this has anything much to do with the EU or climate change, so I'm going to leave that bit there.