ceedee's posterous

Impact assessment shows loft insulations and cavity wall insulations are set to fall dramatically under current plans

Deep concerns over the government's flagship policy to make 14m homes warmer and cheaper to heat have reached the top of government, with prime minister David Cameron and deputy prime minister Nick Clegg receiving a personal briefing on its troubles.

The green deal aims to provide "pay as you save" loans to homeowners to improve their energy efficiency and cut bills. It is due to launch in October but has faced widespread criticism from energy companies, the building industry, consumer groups and charities. The government's own impact assessment shows loft insulations and cavity wall insulations – the most cost-effective measures by far – are set to fall by 93% and 67% respectively under current plans. "The impact assessment says it is going to be a train crash," said Andrew Warren, director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy.

The escalation of the issue to Downing Street came on the same day as official data revealed that average home energy bills have shot up by up 12% – £140 – in 12 months, following a doubling in the past six years due largely to rising gas prices. Furthermore, national statistics on fuel poverty due to be published on Thursday are certain to show a rise from the current 5 million homes, a quarter of the total.

The green deal is intended to address fuel poverty, as well as being a crucial policy in cutting the carbon emissions driving climate change, but the Cabinet Office has been told it will flop unless fundamental changes are made. Warren and a series of other senior stakeholders were interviewed by Cabinet Office officials, who reported to Cameron, Clegg and energy secretary Ed Davey on Wednesday.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "As we implement all policy, we maintain constant dialogue with stakeholders and businesses who have an interest. The deputy prime minister and prime minister are fully committed to the green deal." While the commitment to the green deal is not under review, government sources said the implementation of the policy is being discussed.

Existing policies lead energy companies to lag lofts free of charge, or even pay homeowners, but the funding available for basic energy efficiency and fuel poverty measures is set to fall dramatically under the green deal. Furthermore, loft and cavity wall insulation will not be eligible for green deal loans.

The treasury has already committed £200m to sweeten the green deal for early adopters. "That is a very helpful start, but we are going to have to more than that," said Warren. Suggestions made to the prime minister include council tax and stamp duty discounts for energy efficient homes and a national awareness campaign such as that for the recent digital TV switchover.

In December, the government's own climate advisers launched an unprecedented attack, stating that the green deal would fail and reach only reach 2-3m of the 14m households targeted. "There is a significant risk in leaving it to the market, as that has never worked anywhere in the world and is unlikely to in the UK," said David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change. "We are talking about the transformation of the entire building stock of this country."

Luciana Berger, shadow climate change minister, said: "That No 10 has had to call in the Cabinet Office to fix up the government's flagship green deal is a clear admission that the current proposals are a complete mess, which won't deliver the new jobs, lower bills or reduced carbon emissions we all want to see."

Other criticisms of the green deal include consumer group Which stating it is unfair to use money taken as a levy on all energy bills to subsidise the installation of expensive solid wall insulation in richer households. The Green Alliance said high commercial interest rates will mean too few green deal loans will meet the golden rule – that energy bill savings more than cover the loan repayments – and suggesting the new green investment bank should be allowed to provide discounted loans.

Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Station: Iceland's second largest geothermal power station Photograph by ThinkGeoEnergy

A proposed high voltage electrical cable running across the floor of the North Atlantic Ocean to tap Iceland's surplus volcanic geothermal energy would become the world's longest underwater electrical cable, if it goes ahead. The cable would be a significant step towards a pan-European super grid, which may one day tap renewable sources as far afield as Scandinavia, North Africa and the Middle East. It's argued that such a grid would be able to widely transmit energy surpluses from active renewable sources, thereby alleviating the need for countries to use (or build) back-up fossil fuel power stations to cater for peaks in demand when more local renewable sources aren't particularly productive.

If a European super grid comes to fruition, energy surpluses will be big business. So it's hardly surprising that both Germany and the United Kingdom are jostling for position at the other end of the Icelandic cable, with Norway and the Netherlands also having been mooted as potential connectees. That would necessitate a cable at least 745 miles (1198 km) in length, making it easily the longest electrical cable in the world.

The scheme, first proposed in March of last year by Iceland's largest energy producer Landsvirkjun, would aim to export five billion kilowatt-hours of energy per year for an estimated $350 to $448 million return. A feasibility study subsequently carried out has failed to find any terminal difficulties with the idea, and UK energy minister Charles Hendry is set to fly to Iceland in May to woo the relevant authorities.

An electrical link to Iceland is one of several international interconnectors either proposed or in progress in Europe, in addition to the fifteen or so routes that exist already (existing and planned connections can be seen on this map). Norway is a focal point for many of the confirmed forthcoming interconnectors which, unlike the proposed Iceland link, would see a two-way exchange of energy designed to further boost its energy security and that of its neighbors. The country is already linked via four North Sea interconnectors to Denmark, Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands—the latter being the current world record holder for longest submarine power link at 360 miles (580 km).

More ambitious are the proposed DESERTEC and Medgrid schemes to to interconnect countries and renewable energy sources on both the European and African sides of the Mediterranean Sea. German in origin, DESERTEC would involve the investment of more than $500 billion dollars by 2050, into 6500 square miles (nearly 17,000 sq km) of solar thermal collectors (plus a bit of wind) around the edge the Sahara Desert. The scheme could, it's suggested, supply 15 percent of mainland Europe's energy needs. Facts and figures for the French Medgrid scheme (conceptually very similar to DESERTEC) are rather more elusive, and interpretation varies as to whether the two schemes are complementary or in competition.

Conceptual sketch of the proposed DESERTEC energy system.

the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC)

A problem inherent to all long-distance electrical transmission: energy loss due to the resistance of the cables. Thanks to Joule's first law, the problem is minimized by stepping up voltage, with a ten-fold increase resulting in a 100-fold loss reduction. The Norway-Netherlands link transmits AC at 300,000 and 400,000 volts.

Even the proposed Iceland interconnector, accounting for the worst case scenario of a 930-mile (1500-km) cable, falls well within the bounds of profitability according to the findings of a 1980s study which calculated the longest cost-effective distances for electrical transmission to be 2500 miles (4000 km) for AC and 4300 miles (7000 km) for DC. Official costs are yet to be tabled for the project.

The exportation of renewable energy is a logical next step for Iceland, which has done a grand job of getting its own house in order. The country currently meets 81 percent of its energy needs with domestic renewable sources—thanks in no small part to the country's tremendous geothermal assets, sitting as it does on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (which can have occasional less welcome consequences). The country plans to be free of fossil fuels in the near future.

via arstechnica.com

Figures showing public support for wind energy published on the same day as the launch of a national anti-wind campaign

The figures show a slightly higher enthusiasm for wind power than a Guardian poll in March. Photograph: Joe Klamar/AFP/Getty Images

Two-thirds of the UK public are in favour of wind power according to a new poll, published on the same day as a national anti-wind campaign launches in parliament.

Overall, 66% of Britons were in favour and just 11% against when asked: "to what extent are you in favour of or opposed to the use of wind power in the UK" in the Ipsos Mori poll, commissioned by wind trade body RenewableUK.

The figures show a slightly higher enthusiasm for wind power than a Guardian poll in March, which revealed 60% of people were in favour of wind. The discrepancy could be partly explained by the framing of the questions, with the Guardian research asking if people were in favour of windfarms near their homes.

Maria McCaffery, chief executive of RenewableUK, said: "It's clear that the majority of those surveyed are supportive of energy from wind – strongly indicated from our survey results. Wind is an abundant, clean, secure and affordable energy source. It is therefore not only undemocratic to allow the vocal anti-wind minority to derail the UK's plans for renewable energy, but also damaging to our economy, undermining investment and jobs that will help to rebuild communities across the country and put the UK on a path to future economic prosperity."

A spokesman said the poll was a direct response to the launch today of National Opposition to Windfarms (Now), that opposes the building of any wind turbines in the UK. "I hope Now will be instrumental in preventing the industrialisation of our best landscapes by campaigning in a united and organised fashion," said Lord Carlile, who sits on Now's steering and is sponsoring its launch.

The poll findings follow a tumultuous few months for wind power, as leaders of turbine makers warned that doubts over the government's commitment to wind was threatening billions of pounds of investment, and 101 Tory MPs wrote to the prime minister asking him to cut subsidies for onshore windfarms.

However, David Cameron responded by defending his support for wind power, writing: "I do believe that onshore wind energy plays a role in a balanced UK electricity mix alongside gas, nuclear, cleaner coal and other forms of renewable energy."

Ipsos Mori interviewed 1,009 people online for the poll.

In the course of preparing for a panel here at the Conference on World Affairs, I ran across a 2009 editorial by environmental journalist Fred Pearce, in which he explains why current global population trends aren't as horrific as they're often made out to be. I thought you should read it.

Global population is going up, Pearce writes, but that's not the same thing as saying that birth rates are going up. And, in the long run, that distinction matters. Around the world—not just in the West—human birthrates are decreasing. And they've been decreasing for a really long time.

Wherever most kids survive to adulthood, women stop having so many. That is the main reason why the number of children born to an average woman around the world has been in decline for half a century now. After peaking at between 5 and 6 per woman, it is now down to 2.6.

This is getting close to the “replacement fertility level” which, after allowing for a natural excess of boys born and women who don’t reach adulthood, is about 2.3. The UN expects global fertility to fall to 1.85 children per woman by mid-century. While a demographic “bulge” of women of child-bearing age keeps the world’s population rising for now, continuing declines in fertility will cause the world’s population to stabilize by mid-century and then probably to begin falling.

Far from ballooning, each generation will be smaller than the last. So the ecological footprint of future generations could diminish. That means we can have a shot at estimating the long-term impact of children from different countries down the generations.

What I really like about this essay, though, is how well Pearce articulates the real problem, which is over-consumption. Population and consumption might appear to be intrinsically linked, but they're not. As Pearce points out, global consumption is increasing far faster than global population and the average American family of four uses far more land, far more water, far more energy and produces far more emissions than an Ethiopian family of 11.

This is important. I've heard many, many Americans express their fears about population growth over the years. Pearce's essay makes it clear that, when you do that, you're pretty much being a concern troll. The population problem, while still real, is well on its way to solving itself. The consumption problem, not so much. Population growth is a problem of the poor. Consumption growth is a problem of the rich (which, from a global perspective, includes pretty much everyone in the United States). So when you ignore consumption and pin the blame for global sustainability issues on population, what you're doing is blaming the 99% for the mistakes of the 1%.

Read Frank Pearce's entire essay on Yale Environment 360

Lloyd's of London, the world's biggest insurance market, has become the first major business organisation to raise its voice about huge potential environmental damage from oil drilling in the Arctic.

The City institution estimates that $100bn (£63bn) of new investment is heading for the far north over the next decade, but believes cleaning up any oil spill in the Arctic, particularly in ice-covered areas, would present "multiple obstacles, which together constitute a unique and hard-to-manage risk".

Richard Ward, Lloyd's chief executive, urged companies not to "rush in [but instead to] step back and think carefully about the consequences of that action" before research was carried out and the right safety measures put in place.

The main concerns, outlined in a report drawn up with the help of the Chatham House thinktank, come as the future of the Arctic is reviewed by a House of Commons select committee and just two years after the devastating BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

The far north has become a centre of commercial attention as global temperatures rise, causing ice to melt in a region that could hold up to a quarter of the world's remaining hydrocarbon reserves.

Cairn Energy and Shell are among the oil companies that have either started or are planning new wells off the coasts of places such as Greenland and Canada, while Total – currently at the centre of a North Sea gas leak – wants to develop the Shtokman field off Russia.

Shtokman is the largest single potential offshore Arctic project, 350 miles into the Russian-controlled part of the Barents Sea, where investment could reach $50bn.

A BP joint venture is planning to spend up to $10bn on developing onshore oilfields in the Yamal-Nenets autonomous area of Russia, despite its experiences with the Macondo oil spill in the relatively benign waters of the Gulf. A series of onshore mining schemes are also planned, with Lakshmi Mittal, Britain's richest man, wanting to develop a new opencast mine 300 miles inside the Arctic circle in a bid to extract up to £14bn of iron ore.

But the new report from Lloyd's, written by Charles Emmerson and Glada Lahn of Chatham House, says it is "highly likely" that future economic activity in the Arctic will further disturb ecosystems already stressed by the consequences of climate change.

"Migration patterns of caribou and whales in offshore areas may be affected. Other than the direct release of pollutants into the Arctic environment, there are multiple ways in which ecosystems could be disturbed, such as the construction of pipelines and roads, noise pollution from offshore drilling, seismic survey activity or additional maritime traffic as well as through the break-up of sea ice."

The authors point out that the Arctic is not one but several ecosystems, and is "highly sensitive to damage" that would have a long-term impact. They are calling for "baseline knowledge about the natural environment and consistent environmental monitoring". Pollution sources include mines, oil and gas installations, industrial sites and, in the Russian Arctic, nuclear waste from civilian and military installations, and from nuclear weapons testing on Novaya Zemlya. The report singles out a potential oil spill as the "greatest risk in terms of environmental damage, potential cost and insurance" – but says there are significant knowledge gaps in this area.

Rates of natural biodegradation of oil in the Arctic could be expected to be lower than in more temperate environments such as the Gulf of Mexico, although there is currently insufficient understanding of how oil will degrade over the long term in the Arctic. Sea ice could assist in some oil-spill response techniques, such as in-situ burning and chemical dispersant application, but this could lead to air pollution and the release of chemicals into the marine environment without knowing where moving ice will eventually carry them.

Unclear legal boundaries posed by a mosaic of regulations and governments in the Arctic are an additional challenge. The Lloyd's report notes that there is no international liability and compensation regime for oil spills. An EU proposal under discussion would apply to offshore oil projects in the Arctic territories of Norway and Denmark, and possibly to all EU companies anywhere they operate.

Meanwhile, a taskforce is drawing up recommendations for the intergovernmental Arctic Council on an international instrument on marine oil pollution designed to speed up the process for clean-up and compensation payments, due for release next year. This may include an international liability and compensation instrument. Greenland has argued that "different national systems may lead to ambiguities and unnecessary delays in oil pollution responses and compensation payments" and that any regime must adapt as understanding of the worst-case scenario in the Arctic changes.

The Lloyd's report says the "inadequacies" of both company and government in the event of a disaster were demonstrated after the Macondo blowout. A smaller company than BP, faced with estimated $40bn clean-up and compensation costs, might have gone bankrupt, leaving the state to foot the bill, it notes.

Lloyd's says it is essential that there is more investment in science and research to "close knowledge gaps, reduce uncertainties and manage risks". It calls for sizeable investment in infrastructure and surveillance to enable "safe economic activity" and argues that "full-scale exercises based on worst-case scenarios of environmental disaster should be run by companies".

The Arctic's vulnerable environment, unpredictable climate and lack of a precedent on which to base cost assessments have led some environmental NGOs to argue that no compensation would be worth the risk of allowing drilling to take place in pristine offshore areas. Others are campaigning for more stringent regulations and the removal of the liability cap for investors.

Averting the worst consequences of human-induced climate change is a "great moral issue" on a par with slavery, according to the leading Nasa climate scientist Prof Jim Hansen.

He argues that storing up expensive and destructive consequences for society in future is an "injustice of one generation to others".

Hansen, who will next Tuesday be awarded the prestigious Edinburgh Medal for his contribution to science, will also in his acceptance speech call for a worldwide tax on all carbon emissions.

In his lecture, Hansen will argue that the challenge facing future generations from climate change is so urgent that a flat-rate global tax is needed to force immediate cuts in fossil fuel use. Ahead of receiving the award – which has previously been given to Sir David Attenborough, the ecologist James Lovelock, and the economist Amartya Sen – Hansen told the Guardian that the latest climate models had shown the planet was on the brink of an emergency. He said humanity faces repeated natural disasters from extreme weather events which would affect large areas of the planet.

"The situation we're creating for young people and future generations is that we're handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control," he said. "We're in an emergency: you can see what's on the horizon over the next few decades with the effects it will have on ecosystems, sea level and species extinction."

Now 70, Hansen is regarded as one of the most influential figures in climate science; the creator of one of the first global climate models, his pioneering role in warning about global warming is frequently cited by climate campaigners such as former US vice president Al Gore and in earlier science prizes, including the $1m Dan David prize. He has been arrested more than once for his role in protests against coal energy.

Hansen will argue in his lecture that current generations have an over-riding moral duty to their children and grandchildren to take immediate action. Describing this as an issue of inter-generational justice on a par with ending slavery, Hansen said: "Our parents didn't know that they were causing a problem for future generations but we can only pretend we don't know because the science is now crystal clear.

"We understand the carbon cycle: the CO2 we put in the air will stay in surface reservoirs and won't go back into the solid earth for millennia. What the Earth's history tells us is that there's a limit on how much we can put in the air without guaranteeing disastrous consequences for future generations. We cannot pretend that we did not know."

Hansen said his proposal for a global carbon tax was based on the latest analysis of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and their impact on global temperatures and weather patterns. He has co-authored a scientific paper with 17 other experts, including climate scientists, biologists and economists, which calls for an immediate 6% annual cut in CO2 emissions, and a substantial growth in global forest cover, to avoid catastrophic climate change by the end of the century.

The paper, which has passed peer review and is in the final stages of publication by the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, argues that a global levy on fossil fuels is the strongest tool for forcing energy firms and consumers to switch quickly to zero carbon and green energy sources. In larger countries, that would include nuclear power.

Under this proposal, the carbon levy would increase year on year, with the tax income paid directly back to the public as a dividend, shared equally, rather than put into government coffers. Because the tax would greatly increase the cost of fossil fuel energy, consumers relying on green or low carbon sources of power would benefit the most as this dividend would come on top of cheaper fuel bills. It would promote a dramatic increase in the investment and development of low-carbon energy sources and technologies.

The very rich and most profligate energy users, people with several homes, or private jets and fuel-hungry cars, would also be forced into dramatically changing their energy use. In the new paper, Hansen, director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and his colleagues warn that failing to cut CO2 emissions by 6% now will mean that by 2022, the annual cuts would need to reach a more drastic level of 15% a year.

Had similar action been taken in 2005, when the Kyoto protocol on climate change came into force, the CO2 emission reductions would have been at a more manageable 3% a year. The target was to return CO2 levels in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, down from its current level of 392ppm. The paper, the "Scientific case for avoiding dangerous climate change to protect young people and nature", also argues that the challenge is growing because of the accelerating rush to find new, harder–to-reach sources of oil, gas and coal in the deep ocean, the Arctic and from shale gas reserves.

Hansen said current attempts to limit carbon emissions, particularly the European Union's emissions trading mechanism introduced under the Kyoto protocol which restricts how much CO2 an industry can emit before it has to pay a fee for higher emissions, were "completely ineffectual". Under the global carbon tax proposal, the mechanisms for controlling fossil fuel use would be taken out of the hands of individual states influenced by energy companies, and politicians anxious about winning elections.

"It can't be fixed by individual specific changes; it has to be an across-the-board rising fee on carbon emissions," said Hansen. "We can't simply say that there's a climate problem, and leave it to the politicians. They're so clearly under the influence of the fossil fuel industry that they're coming up with cockamamie solutions which aren't solutions. That is the bottom line."

Public subsidies for the development of wind power in the UK are dwarfed by the tax breaks enjoyed by fossil fuels, a new Guardian analysis has revealed. Financial support for fledgling renewable energy industries has increasingly come under attack in recent months, but the new data shows that the older industries benefit to a far greater extent.

Gas, oil and coal prices were subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , whereas offshore and onshore wind received £0.7bn in the year from April 2010. All renewables in the UK benefited from £1.4bn over the same period, according to data from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc).

The government argues that investing in wind, marine, solar and other renewable energy sources will help meet the nation's legally binding cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as providing economic opportunities for the UK and a more diversified and less volatile energy supply. It points to rising global gas prices as the major reason for the sharp rise in home energy bills in recent years. Opponents argue investing in renewables is unaffordable in this economic climate.

The Treasury was unable to provide figures for the tax relief and other subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels, but the OECD data is described as "very robust" by subsidies expert Peter Wooders, who worked for British Gas and is now at the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Almost 90% of the fossil fuel subsidy comes from the reduced rate of VAT paid by households. Wooders said if such price cuts were intended to reduce energy costs for poorer households, they were a "very blunt tool" with many better-off people also gaining. "Just about any other way than fossil fuel cost subsidies will be more effective," he said. Gas, which dominates home heating and electricity generation in the UK, received about £3bn in subsidy, with oil getting £500m and coal £72m.

Wooders said the purpose of subsidies should be to reduce the cost of new – rather than existing – energy sources: "You want renewable subsidies to reduce the cost of the technology, so you have better options going forward." Support for renewables in the UK comes mainly via an obligation on electricity suppliers to provide increasing amounts of renewable energy, paid for by a levy on energy bills. Feed-in-tariffs – direct payments for green power such as those for solar power – account for just 1% of the total subsidies to renewables.

Green electricity benefits from the price cut delivered by the reduced VAT rate but, while no data is available on the sum, it will be far smaller than for gas and coal, which provide 85% of UK electricity, compared with 6% for renewables in 2010-11.

No comprehensive analysis of subsidies provided to each energy technology exists with, for example, no data on the cost of subsidising red diesel, used in agriculture and industry by about 70p a litre (about 50%) or on export credit guarantees given to British companies who have recently ventured into deep-sea oil drilling off Brazil and coal mining in Siberia. Other subsidies include the millions of pounds of free coal given each year to former British Coal miners and their families, a scheme that has cost almost £1bn since 1994 and is not expected to end until 2064.

"It's incredible that as millions of families across Britain are feeling the squeeze, George Osborne is handing billions of pounds of taxpayers' money to some of the biggest and most polluting corporations in the world," said a senior Greenpeace campaigner, Joss Garman. "Whilst ministers are transparent about the relatively small sums they are using to support our emerging clean energy businesses, in contrast there's no openness about the staggering amounts they're spending on huge fossil fuel and nuclear corporations."

Most of the Decc's budget is spent on decommissioning nuclear power stations and managing nuclear waste, which cost taxpayers £7bn on 2010-11. Nuclear power is expected to benefit from the forthcoming carbon floor price, receiving perhaps £50m a year, and possible tax exemption on uranium. Anti-nuclear campaigners also claim that "hidden subsidies", such as the limit on an operator's liability for accidents, are worth billions.

The UK's greater subsidies for fossil fuels mirrors the global situation, with the International Energy Agency recently showing that, in the 37 countries it analysed, oil, gas and coal received $409bn (£261bn) in 2010 compared with $66bn for renewable energy. Wooders noted the IEA analysis excluded support for the exploration and recovery of oil and gas, which he estimates to be worth about $100bn a year, and that fossil fuel subsidies have not been declining in recent years.

But the pressure to remove such subsidies is growing: the G20 pledged in 2009 to phase them out in "the medium term", with President Barack Obama pledging the same this month. The issue is also on the agenda for the global environment summit in Rio de Janeiro this June, 20 years on from the Earth summit.

Lord Browne, the former chief executive of BP, has backed wind power subsidies. "People forget the government supported the oil and gas supply chain in its early days: with generous tax incentives, training programmes, strategic infrastructure; and supportive regulation," he said in 2011. "The result today is a world leading industry, creating jobs in manufacturing and engineering across the UK."

Others have called for far greater support for the green economy, by direct investment of some of the money created by the government through so-called "quantitative easing." The economist who coined the phrase, Professor Richard Werner, now at Southampton University, said: "The staggering £325bn [of QE to date] has largely ended up with the banks in the futile hope that it would result in a substantial increase in UK lending to business. To ensure that this does not happen again, we need a different kind of QE, to help the wider economy directly and to implement some badly needed green projects that would enhance the sustainability of the economy and improve the environment—as well as creating thousands of new jobs."

Green goddess: after her victory on immigration rights for Gurkha veterans, Joanna Lumley has now thrown her support behind the Greens in the Euro elections

Joanna Lumley is urging voters to shun mainstream politicians and instead back the Greens in next week's Euro elections.

Fresh from her triumph in securing immigration rights for Gurkha veterans, the actress has thrown her support behind the party for the 4 June poll. Party insiders believe Lumley's popularity will provide a huge boost to their campaign for the European Parliament.

Lumley, who so far has not shown interest in being a politician herself, said the public should make a “positive vote” for the party and has given her personal backing to Green Party leader and South-East MEP Caroline Lucas.

The actress and campaigner said: “Caroline Lucas is a tireless campaigner in the European Parliament, staunchly defending human rights and strongly promoting greater protection for animals.”

Both women have campaigned against human rights abuses in Burma and Lumley said the Green Party was “the obvious choice for real change”. “I urge you to cast a positive vote for a better future by voting Green in the European elections,” the actress said. Ms Lucas said: “I feel honoured to have her support.”