CFACT

06/14/2026

Imagine a spontaneous lithium fire inside your house that you cannot extinguish.

The automaker’s latest park-outside fire recall campaign now includes one million Jeep vehicles.

06/13/2026

The prevailing climate change narrative took a big hit in recent days, as scientists who comprise the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are backing away from their more outlandish climate predictions for the 21st century. Extreme forecasts of rising temperatures

06/12/2026

Africans won't except anything less than full-on energy abundance. Why should they? Nuclear is a key component.

Share the facts at CFACT.org: https://www.cfact.org/2026/06/12/africas-nuclear-future-is-small-modular-reactors/

Rwandan President Paul Kagame may well be Africa’s foremost nuclear energy champion. Speaking in Paris at Nuclear Energy Summit 2026, Kagame said Rwanda is determined to do what it takes to power its development with nuclear energy. This, he said, will require strong institutions, sound regulation, and an educated workforce – all of which Rwanda is building.

A recent Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review in Rwanda by the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed progress across key pillars of building a strong, secure nuclear energy program. IAEA team leader Mehmet Ceyhan cited strong government support and effective coordination of preparatory work that “reflected a deep commitment to the program.”

Kagame told the Paris audience that “nuclear technology is evolving in ways that benefit countries with small grids, allowing Africa to be among the early adopters” and that small modular reactors (SMRs) in particular are especially suited to Africa’s requirements.” Today, at least 10 African nations are actively exploring nuclear as the continent envisions generating 15 gigawatts (GW) of electricity from nuclear by the mid-2030s.

Back in October 2019, Rwanda and the Russian Federation jointly established a Centre for Nuclear Science and Technology (CNST). CNST’s focus is on production of isotopes for cancer diagnosis and treatment, utilizing radiation for crop improvement and material testing and non-destructive evaluation at industrial sites. This work is preparing Rwanda for more complex nuclear projects – like small modular reactors – and for public acceptance of nuclearization.

Rebounding from the COVID pandemic, Rwanda last September hosted the inaugural Nuclear Energy Innovation Summit for Africa (NEISA 2025), whose theme was “The Potential of Small Modular and Micro Reactors in Accelerating Africa’s Energy Transition.”

In his keynote address, Rwandan Prime Minister Dr. Edouard Ngirente revealed that his nation’s ambitious plan to increase electricity generation from 1 GW to 5 GW by 2050 would rely heavily on nuclear energy.

Ngirente said that the future of the African energy landscape will continue to be driven by increasing energy demand and increasing population growth. With a projected population of 3 billion within a few decades, Africa has the potential to be the largest energy market in the globe – thanks to industrialization, artificial intelligence, and urbanization.

Today, however, more than 600 million Africans have no access to electricity, and millions more have only intermittent, often-interrupted access – at a price many cannot afford. Africa is looking to nuclear, he said, because “it is clean [and thus compatible with UN climate goals], reliable, and does not depend on the rain or sun. It provides consistent power, day and night.”

“In this regard,” he concluded, “we recognize the need for smaller and micro nuclear power plants as a pathway for smaller energy systems to afford nuclear energy in our national energy mix.” And, he added, “we welcome partners from around the world to collaborate, localize their solutions, and scale impact – not only in Rwanda, but across the African continent.”

To reemphasize his nation’s – and Africa’s – commitment to a nuclear future, Ngirente left his audience with three messages. First, nuclear energy holds the potential to accelerate African progress, strengthen essential services, and promote inclusive development across all communities during the energy transition.”

Second, Africa must lead this transition together – through regional partnerships, innovation, and global cooperation. Third, the time to act is now. “We must diversify our energy mix – and nuclear is part of that solution.”

Kagame’s words from Paris – that Africa will emerge as one of the most important global markets for SMRs – and his call for stronger international cooperation to support African nuclear energy deployment were the springboard for NEISA 2026, held in May again in Kigali.

As if to signify the urgency Africans have about bringing nuclear energy to the continent, the 2026 NEISA Summit was “Powering Africa’s Future, turning Nuclear Energy Ambition into Investable Reality.” Global leaders, shocked by the demands of new technologies for massive amounts of electricity, are warming up to nuclear.

Buoyed by the World Bank’s decision to lift its longstanding ban on financing nuclear energy projects, the discussions highlighted a broader shift across Africa as governments seek to expand electricity access, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and prepare for rapid population growth.

The heads of state of several African nations, including Tanzanian President Samia Suluhu Hassan (whose nation boasts major uranium reserves), Niger’s Prime Minister Ali Mahamane Zeine, and Faure Essozimma Gnassingbe, the President of Togo (who may host NEISA 2027), all supported an SMR-driven nuclear future. Then attendees, mainly representatives of governments and major research institutions, got down to business.

Overall, Africa has a lot of catching up to do. But with SMRs, African nations can be at the forefront, largely because in many places these powerplants would be providing the first reliable electricity to entire regions.

Just last year, Hassan signed a deal with Russia’s Rosatom to build a $400 million uranium processing plant as part of a $1.2 billion, 20-year plan to extract and process 300,000 metric tons of Tanzania’s massive reserves of uranium. Rosatom already supplies the uranium for Africa’s only active nuclear power plant, Eskom’s Koeberg Unit 2 in South Africa.

Eskom just obtained a 20-year license extension for its Koeberg plant. It also announced plans to resurrect its long-dormant nuclear energy industry by reversing a decision made in 2010 to stop investing in its pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR) project, begun in 1993 and based on German technology.

The PBMR is intended as a small-scale, high-temperature reactor that uses TRISO fuel, with helium as the coolant, making it capable of supplying process heat as well as generating electricity. Eskom in 2020 said it wanted to take the PBMR project out of “care and maintenance” and commercialize the business – and it took five more years to win approval.

Other African nations are following suit. Egypt, thanks to Russian help, expects its first nuclear powerplant to go online in 2028 – with four reactors and a total capacity of 4.8 GW. Ghana plans to commission its first nuclear plant by the early 2030s, while Uganda has announced intentions to build a nuclear facility with support from international partners.

Rwanda’s nuclear future includes having nuclear energy operational by the early 2030s by building a powerplant expected to cost $5 to $6 billion. Togo, Niger, Tanzania, and other African nations are not far behind.

Why are African leaders so enamored with SMRs (and microreactors)? Kagame says SMRs can are standalone units that can service an industry, a hospital, a small city – even where there is no functioning national grid.

Nuclear, said Kagame, can be a transformative force for expanding access by Africans to stable electricity, improved healthcare systems, and powering its technological advances. But to achieve these goals, “It is essential to have private investment, institutional collaboration, and long-term sustainable approaches that ensure efficiency and accountability.”

For the first time in modern history, African nations are calling their own shots. Rwanda, along with many of its neighbors, appears more than ready to quintuple its electricity output and power 21st century research, healthcare, education, and industry. All they need is a hand-up.

Rwandan President Paul Kagame may well be Africa’s foremost nuclear energy champion. Speaking in Paris at Nuclear Energy Summit 2026, Kagame said Rwanda is determined to do what it takes to power its development with nuclear energy. This, he said, will require strong institutions, sound regulation...

06/11/2026

Government regulation all too often is abused beyond its means bureaucracy

Share the facts at CFACT: https://www.cfact.org/2026/06/11/two-costly-endangered-species-act-permitting-boondoggles/

Landowners subject to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can in principle get permits to develop their land from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the FWS is supposed to estimate the average applicant’s labor and expenses in getting a permit. Their estimates are listed in this government-wide database.

As explained below, the labor estimate is clearly prohibitive for most people. This is the first boondoggle.

The cost is likely also prohibitive, but a realistic estimate is missing in action. FWS needs to get honest about the huge cost of ESA development permits. Failure to provide a reasonable cost estimate is the second boondoggle. It may even be a case of administrative fraud.

First, a bit of jargon. This is called an incidental take permit. Under many other wildlife protection laws, the critter is said to be taken if it is directly impacted, such as being killed, injured, harassed, etc. ESA is far broader, so “take” includes affecting the animal’s habitat in ways that might be detrimental. Incidental means the take is not the point of the permitted action.

Over 100 million acres of land and 34,000 miles of streams are presently designated as protected habitat under ESA, so the need for incidental take permits is potentially extensive.

Each incidental take permit must include a detailed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) which includes a lot of technical ecological analysis. Preparing the HCP is where most of the labor and cost come from. See it here.

FWS provides separate official labor and cost estimates for the preparing the permit application and for doing the Habitat Conservation Plan. Let’s start with the labor estimates.

For preparing the application, the claimed average labor is a mere 3 hours. This is undoubtedly very low because the application requires getting copies of a lot of documents, plus understanding the regulations, etc. But this is nothing compared to doing the HCP.

The official FWS applicant labor estimate for preparing the Habitat Conservation Plan is a staggering 2,080 hours. That is precisely a full person-year of work.

Accepting this huge number for the moment, it is easy to see that few landowners will have the time to apply for a permit. Big organizations with big plans might throw that much staff time at getting a permit. but, short of that, it is just too much work.

What is really scary is this huge number is likely to be way low. Agencies are under great pressure to lowball their labor estimates. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) imposes a regulatory labor budget on each agency. The total allowable annual labor required under all the agency’s regulations taken together is set by the Office of Management and Budget. (Disclosure: I helped design this “burden budget” system.)

Since every agency wants to bring out new regulations, they need ways to reduce the labor estimates on their existing rules. Sometimes they make meaningful changes, but often they just lie harder and lower the estimates. That the HCP estimate exactly equals 40 hours/week times 52 weeks strongly suggests that it is not a real estimate.

A big flaw in the PRA is that it does not require field sampling of actual labor amounts, so bogus estimates are unconstrained. However, given the drive to minimize them, this huge 2080 hours per permit should be considered the low end of the possibilities. It might take several person-years of labor.

When it comes to cost, the deception gets far worse, as the HCP cost is officially estimated at ZERO. What makes this “no cost” estimate preposterous is that the preparation of HCPs for landowners is a recognized industry.

The FWS permit application form tells applicants to use the agency’s “Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook.” The full title is “Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook.” It is here.

The official Handbook has an entire section titled “Consultants and Contractors.” Here is the very first sentence:

“Since applicants typically do not have in-house knowledge or experience with the HCP process, they often hire environmental consultants or contractors to assist with preparing the HCP.”

These HCP consultants and contractors cost money. A number of major consultancies are heavily into providing HCP services. For example, the National Habitat Conservation Plan Coalition includes these members: Environmental Science Associates, ICF, SWCA Environmental Consultants, and Zara Environmental. The Coalition promotes the development of regional-scale HCPs, where the consultant members no doubt hope to make big bucks.

We have little information about what the HCP costs are, but one of the Coalition members has posted a fee system for extending their regional HCP to cover local property development. This is Charlotte County, Florida, which I discuss in my article “Endangered Species Act regulatory overkill.”

The HCP fees are by property size and range from about $2,000 for less than 0.22 acres to over two million dollars for anything over 100 acres. Few people can afford this.

FWS estimates there are 46 large-scale HCPs a year, so the total annual cost could easily be many millions of dollars. Thus, their claim of zero HCP cost is incredibly deceptive. Since it violates the Paperwork Reduction Act, it looks like a clear case of administrative fraud.

The public, landowners, and Congress need to know what Endangered Species Act development permitting actually requires in labor and cost.

Landowners subject to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) can in principle get permits to develop their land from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, the FWS is supposed to estimate the average applicant's labor and expenses in getting a permit. Their estimates....

06/10/2026

06/09/2026

The Left uses infiltration and intimidation to gain influence over productive businesses they'd gladly destroy given the chance.

No more appeasement. The push back is on!

Share the facts at CFACT: https://www.cfact.org/2026/06/09/cfact-grills-walmart-execs-over-biased-charitable-giving-practices/

At Walmart’s 2026 annual shareholder meeting, CFACT’s National Director Nate Myers pressed the company over whether its charitable giving and public-policy engagement advance shareholder value or ideological priorities.

Myers asked: “Walmart’s 2026 Proxy Statement says public-policy engagement follows its ‘shared value approach,’ while the Nominating and Governance Committee oversees charitable giving, lobbying, and trade-association activity. What safeguards are in place to prevent shareholder money from funding ideological campaigns like climate change activism rather than non-partisan charitable activity?”

The question drew from Walmart’s 2026 Proxy Statement, which says the Nominating and Governance Committee reviews legislative affairs, public-policy engagement, and charitable-giving strategy, and that Walmart’s public-policy engagement is guided by its “shared value approach.”

Shareholder corporate governance, as conservatives and libertarians see it, holds that a company’s primary duty is to maximize long-term value for its owners—the shareholders—by generating profits within the rules of law and basic ethics (per Milton Friedman’s classic view). This respects private property rights, voluntary contracts, and market discipline, with executives acting as fiduciaries accountable to those who bear the financial risk.

Stakeholder governance (a.k.a “shared value approach”), by contrast, expands corporate obligations to a broader set of “stakeholders” like communities, woke activists, or environmentalists who don’t actually financially contribute to the company, but can benefit from charitable giving or other perks at the expense of owners (shareholders). Conservatives and libertarians view this as a form of soft socialism that dilutes accountability, empowers special interests, offends free speech, and undermines the efficiency and innovation that arise from focused profit-seeking.

Kathleen McLaughlin, Walmart’s Executive Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer, answered for the company. Rather than identify safeguards preventing ideological giving, McLaughlin defended Walmart’s philanthropy as “shared value,” meaning value for customers, associates, suppliers, and communities.

That answer matters because Walmart’s own documents show the phrase is not limited to neutral charity or direct shareholder return. Perhaps sensing Mr. Myers intent, McLaughlin shirked direct responsibility stating, “The leadership really starts with the CEO and the executive leadership team,” and adding their giving focuses on “helping to conserve the natural resources our products rely on” and creating “economic opportunity for people who work in value chains.”

What she didn’t mention is that Walmart’s own annual report says its sustainability priorities include reducing greenhouse gas emissions, roping off natural resources from being properly utilized, reducing product and packaging quality by cutting corners in the name of recycling, and enforcing stakeholder ideology within its supply chains. The proxy likewise says the Nominating and Governance Committee oversees social, community, and sustainability initiatives, including climate change.

In other words, when Walmart says, “shared value,” it is not talking about values shared by shareholders across the political spectrum. It is talking about the shared values of the ESG and DEI agendas running rampant within pop culture and Walmart’s leadership.

Walmart and the Walmart Foundation’s charitable materials show how broad that agenda is. Their giving priorities go beyond local food banks and disaster relief, extending into greenhouse-gas reduction initiatives, restrictive land and ocean management goals, supply-chain pressure, climate-related policy work, and racial-equity activism.

There was also an obvious irony in Walmart’s choice of respondent. McLaughlin sidestepped concerns about ideological governance even though her own title as “Sustainability Officer” embodies that model. In corporate America, “sustainability” has become the eco-left’s preferred euphemism for climate targets, natural-resource restrictions, supply-chain pressure, and stakeholder governance. Her own about page on Walmart’s website openly notes that she was a former advisor to The Nature Conservancy, an organization dripping with climate alarmism. In addition, “she was also ranked #1 by Sustainability Magazine among their 2026 Top 250 Women in Sustainability. In 2023, Kathleen was named to Time Magazine’s inaugural “TIME100 Climate List,” recognizing the most influential climate leaders in business.”

The Walton Family Foundation is legally separate from Walmart and the Walmart Foundation, but its agenda remains relevant because the Walton name carries enormous influence inside the company and two family members still sit on the board.

The broader Walton philanthropic ecosystem shows a clear pattern of environmental and left-wing giving, including major support for Ocean Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense Fund, and Natural Resources Defense Council. It has also funded climate messaging through PBS NewsHour, NPR’s Climate Desk, Associated Press environmental reporting, and Good Energy Project’s effort to bring “climate storytelling to Hollywood.”

CFACT also supported Proposal No. 5, sponsored by ally National Legal and Policy Center, which called on Walmart to adopt cumulative voting for board elections. CFACT voted for the proposal because it would have given minority shareholders a stronger voice against entrenched corporate leadership. Unfortunately, it did not pass.

McLaughlin’s response did not reassure shareholders that Walmart’s charitable giving is politically neutral. It confirmed that Walmart’s philanthropy is part of a board-supervised stakeholder agenda.

Walmart can call that “shared value.” But for shareholders who do not share the company’s ideological definition of value, the phrase looks less like a business principle and more like a cover for corporate activism.

At Walmart’s 2026 annual shareholder meeting, CFACT’s National Director Nate Myers pressed the company over whether its charitable giving and public-policy engagement advance shareholder value or ideological priorities. Myers asked: “Walmart’s 2026 Proxy Statement says public-policy engageme...

06/07/2026

Without property, all other rights become vulnerable.

06/06/2026

Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force:
You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months.

The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.
In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of N**i tyranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well-trained, well-equipped, and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944. Much has happened since the N**i triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-man. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned. The free men of the world are marching together to victory.

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty, and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full victory.
Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

— Dwight Eisenhower

Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force: You are about to embark upon the Great

06/05/2026

That other Uncle Miltie!

Innovation thrives where there is freedom to create.