Talk:Earthlife Africa

Neutrality
Yes, my attempts towards neutrality are clumsy. The best way to cover this is to have a criticism section, which mentions sourced criticism of all types. Describing its current position should be done using current documentation and actions. Greenman 22:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of Earthlife being criticized for being too radical. The current criticism is that it has become too conservative and focused on lobbying as opposed to action. Ethnopunk 13:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They're criticised all the time in the mainstream press for being too radical, freaks who oppose nuclear power, etc :) Greenman 21:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Coming from South Africa's liberal-conservative press, I would say that makes ELA liberal, not even radical or progressive.

Ethnopunk 13:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They could, however, be critisized for acting on incomplete and incorrect information. It does not take much research to discover that coal-fired power plants are much more harmful than nuclear plants. Indeed, they release more radioactive isotopes (which were contained in the coal) into the air than even the low-grade waste from nuclear plants do. In South Africa, for example, the burying of radioactive waste at Vaalputs makes the area LESS radioactive, as the waste emits less radiation than the normal background radiation from the soil in the area. Any fears about leakage from the reactors themselves are also completely unfounded. The only reason Chernobyl failed catastrophically was because of and extremely stupid reactor design, as well as the Russians being to cheap to build concrete containment buildings around the reactors. (The negative effect of Chernobyl's failure wasn't even that big, anyway, read the article.) The only result of Earthlife Africa's agitation against the building of new PBMR's in South Africa is that the process has been slowed down, causing a potential slowdown of economic growth. They might not be radical, but they sure are stupid... Oom Kosie 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, groundWork (Groundwork South Africa or Groundwork UK?), Urgewald Urgewald and BankTrack report for this event (2011) was: Bankrolling climate change 30. November 2011. I put here, since Earthlife Africa is coauthor. According to the report (p. 15-19): New coal investments risk seriously the scientifically estimated carbon emissions decline needed. ''The world’s financial markets are carrying an enormous carbon bubble and that is not fit to manage the transition to a low-carbon economy. For the short-term gains banks are setting the stage for long-term catastrophic climate change.'' Top investment and commercial banks financing coal investments during 2005-2011 were JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, BNP Paribas, Credit Suisse and UBS. Top twenty banks have provided over 171 billion Euros to the coal industry since 2005 to start of December 2011. The report includes a lot more to read. Watti Renew (talk) 11:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Earthlife Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080828141107/http://www.osall.org.za/docs/Hotdocs/Earthlife_v_Eskom.pdf to http://www.osall.org.za/docs/Hotdocs/Earthlife_v_Eskom.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)