By Alana McVerry

The multitude of slanderous campaigns and squabbling fights are escalating, the leaders ferociously scratching their way to the top post as the election day draws ever near.

If you still remain undecided on which one of those blokes on telly shouting at each other you would like in the top seat, then here's a quick green related guide to help you on your way.

Labour

if the events of the last 10 years haven't been too detrimental to your welfare then maybe good old Gordon is still in the running for your vote. But how green is Gordon?

Economy:
Given the lovely shape our economy has been pummeled in by it's trusted instructor, we would expect some 'lets take action' style policies on this front. However, what we actually have is some vague plans to cut 'low priority' government programs, with decisions to be made post election. Ooh sneaky. What we want is better provision for health care, education and frontline services, but to pay less for it. But given how far removed the top dog is from the day to day running of the NHS and such like, it's kind of like when you were a toddler and you spent three hours trying to fit the square block through the circle hole. It always ends in tears.

Transport:
The only party to be very 'un-greenly' supportive of a third runway at Heathrow. Though they seem to be trying to slip this through with a policy on electric car charging points and improved commuter services. Lesson to be learned, decoys never work when it's in print.

Environment:
80% carbon cut by 2050 sounds quite promising. But given that we are really only electing them for a time period due to be up long before the 2050 deadline, and we won't really be able to hold them to count, why not just say 100%? You never know, I might believe you.

Jobs:
Focusing on youth unemployment with training places and education, and boosting the job market with vaguely termed 'green jobs'. 250,00 of them and all.

Tax:
50p tax rate for the super earners. Seems fair.

Green Score : 6/10 (It all went wrong at Heathrow)

There's been something of a wailing and a gnashing of teeth around the web today, as fans of Innocent drinks discovered that the brand they'd come to see as a sort of fruit-based best friend had in fact been consorting with the bad boys all along. Or at least recently, as it emerged that Coca cola has bought a £30m stake in the company.

Innocent now joins the likes of Green & Blacks, which was bought by Cadbury Schweppes, Pret a Manger by McDonalds and (perhaps most controversially) The Body Shop by L'Oreal. In all these cases, I can't help thinking we're reminded of how unwise it is to associatie a business too closely with our own values, as however 'ethical' a company may seem, it ultimately has to make money to survive. And perhaps it's better to have the fat cats on side if that's where the money to do all the good stuff Innocent does is to be found?

But how do you feel about the decision? Follow the jump for a poll.

Related: Funky new bottles on the shelves as Innocent delivers on recycling promise | Not that Innocent: smoothies trialled at McDonalds

Ever since the first Andrex puppy bounded down the stairs and into our hearts, loo roll has been getting increasingly soft, strong and long. At first, this represented a welcome departure from the scratchy, tracing-paper torture that many of us remember from our youth, but even the most posteriorly-challenged would agree that just recently, things have gone a bit far.

The current trend in toilet paper (if such a thing can be said to exist) is for such bloated, padded sheets that it can sometimes feel as though you're wiping your bottom with a king-size duvet. And according to campaigners, the American obsession in particular with multi-ply, quilted toilet tissue is having such a devastating effect on the environment that it could be said to be a worse risk to the planet than all the SUVs in the USA. In Europe, we are doing better, with around 40% of toilet paper coming from recycled sources. But in the States, more than 98% comes from virgin forests. Are we in danger of slipping into such bad habits?

Follow the jump to take part in our poll

Related: Recycled toilet paper: how green is it really? | Sheryl Crow says no to toilet paper to save the world

Thinking back to when I first heard about the concept of carbon offsetting, I remember thinking that while it seemed like a lovely idea to absolve your eco sins by adding some scenic foliage to the world, it all seemed a bit too good to be true. I wanted to believe, but it wasn't long before the doubts started to be expressed by those with more of a grasp on the science, I knew it was only a matter of time before carbon offsetting began to sound at best quaint, and at worst, crazy.

A story in the Guardian's Ethical Living Blog gives even more reasons to be sceptical about carbon offsetting, and frankly, I'm sold. But am I being defeatist? Let me know your views on carbon offsetting in by voting in the poll below.

As a long-term veggie and seasoned believer in animal welfare, it came as no surprise to me to see the carnage and mayhem in a shed of intensively farmed chickens last night on Hugh fearnley-whittingstall's Chicken Run on Channel 4. And what's the betting that Hugh's mock-up barn was practically the Ritz compared with the far larger real sheds that don't get shown on TV?

But that familiarity didn't stop me from feeling a sense of sadness and resignation at the fact that some people I've talked to afterwards (even one of those taking part in the show) will continue to buy intensively-farmed chicken because it's so much cheaper -- as much as one third of the cost -- of free range. With this in mind, how has the show affected your choices? Fill out our poll, and be honest!

Last week, we gave you five alternatives to central heating during the colder months. Do you have any better suggestions? If so, we want to know them, so we can compile an ultimate guide to avoiding the thermostat; a guide you can print out and stick underneath the switch.

In the meantime, I'm battling with my own housemates to keep the heating off. By November, I've usually succumbed, but I'm going to see how long I can hold out this year. Living in an upstairs flat, I find that it's rarely necessary to keep the heating switched on, but it's hard to get out of the habit.

So, being entirely honest: at what point in the year do you normally fire up your central heating?

If you've seen our natural skincare roundup, you'll probably be aware that a group of chemical preservatives called parabens are the latest 'controversial' ingredients in cosmetics.

For those who haven't heard, the lowdown is that some people are beginning to avoid using these additives, having read that there is a link between parabens and cancer, while others argue that there is no real evidence to suggest this is the case. But where do you stand on this issue? Are you checking labels on your shower gel and looking out for more natural products?

When Al Gore's grand plans for Live Earth were announced earlier in the year, I remember a lot of green types rolling their eyes and muttering about the current speed of the green bandwagon. And when Madonna was confirmed as a performer, singing her own specially-written Live Earth song, the muttering got even louder and it looked like the whole thing could be a bit of a damp squib. 'Do we really need celebrity endorsement to make us take action?' people asked.

Maybe we don't. Maybe you and I don't, but what about those less educated on the seriousness of global warming? There's something to be said for bringing these issues to the masses, and what better way to do so than by getting a bunch of rock stars to hammer the message home with music. And the Live Earth pledge; a simple set of rules to cut down on energy consumption, are all actions we should be taking, so why not take this opportunity to ensure everyone knows it's better to use energy efficient lightbulbs and not leave gadgets on standby?

So what do you think? Have you say in our poll.

The floods we've seen this week in the UK are on nothing like the scale of disasters like Hurricane Katrina and other catastrophic weather events that are happening more often worldwide, but being used to a mild climate, it's shaken many people into asking some serious questions about climate change.

But the jury is still out on the cause of climate chaos, despite experts claiming that excessive wet weather is a direct consequence of global warming. What does the bizarre summer weather say to you about our treatment of the planet?

Last night between 9 and 10pm, Lights out London saw several landmarks, institutions and individuals switch out their lights and other non-essential appliances for an hour, in a symbolic stance against climate change. Iconic London landmarks like the Houses of Parliament and Piccadilly Circus's huge advertising hoardings were plunged into an eerie darkness, and even the Queen joined in, ensuring that Buckingham Palace was as darks is it was during the blitz.

The campaign appears to have been a big success, as an estimated 2 million light bulbs went out around the capital, saving roughly 750 MWh of electricity in just one hour – enough to run 3,000 televisions for a year. Many others, around the country and worldwide also showed solidarity by taking part, despite a warning from the National Grid not to try and stage nationwide blackouts for fear of causing a power outage with the surge resulting from too many appliances being switched back on at once. But did Hippyshoppers let the side down? Let me know if you swtitched off last night in our poll!

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth went head-to-head with the UK's pilots this week, with the result for most of us being a great deal of confusion about whether or not we can help the environment by choosing not to fly where possible.

As someone who's just booked a train journey to Spain - a journey I intend to document here - this is a subject very close to my heart. I was shocked by the difference in cost, finding that rail travel is many times more expensive than the flying option than one would imagine. It seems to me that without a financial incentive to travel by train, and now a lot of counter arguments that confuse the argument further, not many travellers are likely to make the switch. So in the midst of all the disagreement, I'd really like to know what you think:

Imagine for a moment you're in your local store in the fruit aisle, and wanting to buy a bunch of bananas. There are two options: fairtrade or organic. They are the same price. Which are you most inclined to go for? It's a hypothetical question that rarely happens in reality, but the results could reveal some interesting truths about our shopping habits.

Carbon offsetting has received a lot of criticism recently as a convenient excuse for jet-setters to go on polluting the planet, but a sizeable contingent still swear by it as a realistic means of making our lifestyles greener. It really seems the jury's out on this one, so what do you think?