CFACT

05/15/2026

05/14/2026

CFACT challenged Bank of America on ESG lending practices at the bank’s May 4 annual shareholder meeting.

Share the facts at CFACT: https://www.cfact.org/2026/05/14/cfact-presses-bank-of-americas-ceo-about-esg-lending-at-annual-meeting/

Senior Policy Analyst Melanie Collette asked the board, as read by Head of Investor Relations, Lee McIntire: “Are farmers, ranchers, or agricultural businesses applying for financing being evaluated with criteria that is beyond standard credit and financial metrics?” Collette probed the board to clarify if ESG-based screens are being utilized to deny capital to legitimate American farmers and ranchers.

The bank in essence said “no.”

Brian Moynihan, BOA’s CEO, responded: “I thank you for the question. Yes, we look at people who cover proposals on credit across all businesses based on their business, the risk we see in that business, and assess it with our teammates who work on our credit decisioning. And if people are operating in lawful businesses, we look at their proposals and make a decision based on the underlying cash flow of credit. We are a major lender to agricultural companies around the country, and we’ll continue to be so.”

An on-the-record answer from a bank this size matters, but too often, what gets said at annual meetings and what actually happens in practice can be two different things. CFACT will be watching.

Two shareholder proposals went to a vote, and neither gained significant support, indicating that broader investor sentiment may be shifting away from aggressive ESG activism. The first, presented by Paul Chesser of the National Legal and Policy Center, pushed for a policy requiring the board chair to be an independent director, separate from the CEO role. The argument was built around the fact that Bank of America trails JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup on profitability, and Brian Moynihan’s roughly $40 million pay for 2025. The closing pitch was direct enough that a vote for an independent chair is a vote for accountability. Shareholders weren’t interested. The proposal drew 32.6 percent.

The second proposal, filed by Harrington Investments, was about animal welfare in agricultural lending. It wanted the board to track and report on risks when the bank lends money to factory farms, animal testing facilities, and industries that drive deforestation. The case proposal argued that these businesses could damage the bank’s reputation and create financial problems, especially regarding diseases that spread from animals to people and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This type of proposal gets filed at companies across the country every year by the same groups. Bank of America shareholders weren’t buying it. Only 6.5 percent voted yes. Crushing defeat.

Bank of America’s performance update didn’t break any new ground. Net income for 2025 was $30.5 billion, up 13 percent from the prior year, with earnings per share climbing 19 percent. The bank’s return on tangible common equity came in at 14.2 percent for the full year and jumped to 16 percent in the first quarter of 2026. The stock beat the S&P 500.

Moynihan extensively spoke about “responsible growth” (corporate speak for lending based on credit fundamentals, as opposed to ESG trends). CFACT has pushed back against ESG-based lending for years, and we’ll keep watching how Bank of America lives up to this commitment.

Community investment material was included in the presentation, too. Minimum salary above $50,000 for full-time employees, veterans hiring programs, and stock awards to employees totaling $6.8 billion over the past seven years. Whether those items add up to anything meaningful beyond annual meeting talking points remains to be seen.

One other question at the meeting got a more interesting answer than expected. Shareholder Jeff Piggott pressed management on the influence of proxy advisory firms, specifically Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, the two companies whose recommendations drive the majority of institutional votes in America. Bank of America said it supports substantial reform of the proxy system, which could signal a shift in how institutional votes are influenced. It cited the 2.5 million shareholder accounts that voted this year and argued that current technology should produce something better than the existing arrangement. Conservative shareholders and advocacy organizations have been pushing this position for years without much boardroom support. Getting it acknowledged from inside a major bank’s annual meeting is at minimum a shift in the conversation.

Now that Bank of America has stated that agricultural borrowers get evaluated on credit fundamentals, not ESG frameworks, CFACT will hold them to that. The animal welfare proposal targeting agricultural lending drew 6.5 percent of the vote. Shareholders aren’t interested in ESG screens dictating credit decisions, and Bank of America knows it.

CFACT challenged Bank of America on ESG lending practices at the bank’s May 4 annual shareholder meeting. Senior Policy Analyst Melanie Collette asked the board, as read by Head of Investor Relations, Lee McIntire: “Are farmers, ranchers, or agricultural businesses applying for financing being e...

05/13/2026

FOLLOW THE MONEY...

Share the facts at CFACT.org: https://www.cfact.org/2026/05/13/endangered-species-federal-spending-is-over-a-billion-a-year/

The Endangered Species Act requires a “Report to Congress on Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures.“ It appears that the federal portion alone amounts to well over a billion dollars a year.

Clearly, there is an entire industry here. What the specific spending is for, and who gets it, is a mystery. But there is a lot of fun detail in what each agency spends on each protected species.

First, a caveat. I say “appears” because the latest expenditure report I can find is from fiscal year 2020. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produces this report, and they have an online collection here.

It ends with the 2020 report. They may have the more recent reports in an online database but their big species data system, called ECOS, says there is no occurrence of the term “expenditure.” It even lists its standard reports here.

The 2020 data is good enough to get the feel of what is going on, so let’s go with that. I will point out some stuff that I find interesting, even surprising. Other people might want to look at other aspects that are relevant to them.

The 314-page report consists mostly of several lists that are very long because an expenditure is listed for each of the over 1,600 protected species.

Table 1 lists every species and the total expenditure across all agencies, except land acquisition is not included. The species are listed alphabetically, by common name, within biological groups like birds, fishes, flowering plants, etc. Surprisingly, there are more plants than animals.

Most interesting is the total federal expenditure for the year of $1,135,610,898 or well over a billion dollars. Endangered Species is a very large program that the public knows very little about.

Note that this huge amount does not include the also huge amount that non-federal landowners collectively pay applying for incidental take permits so they can develop their land.

See my “Endangered Species Act regulatory overkill” here.

Table 2 also lists all the species, but they are ranked by expenditure from most down to least. So, Table 1 is the place to look up a particular species, while Table 2 is the place to see where the big bucks are going. Table 1 includes the Table 2 ranking for each species.

Surprisingly, 27 out of the top 30 funded species are fish. Many are various species of salmon and steelhead, but there are others. The three non-fish are the North Atlantic Right Whale, the Desert Tortoise, and the West Indian Manatee. The little-known Razorback Sucker gets more money than any of these three at $14,425,633.

Table 2 includes a running top-down total. The top 30 species, almost all being fish, collectively get $658,328,316 or over half of the program money. Last place is shared by a birch, a chub, and a snail at $100 each. The Red Wolf just beats them at $200.

Appendix B is equally extensive. It lists expenditures by species for each separate federal agency. The big guns are the Army Corps of Engineers and NOAA (especially the National Marine Fisheries Service) with long lists and around $200 million each.

On a fun note, a lot of the little-known species have interesting or even amusing names. Clams seem to specialize in them, and there are a lot of clams. Examples include the Purple Bankclimber, Turgid Blossom, Appalachian Elktoe, Arkansas Fatmucket, Inflated Heelsplitter, and Cumberland Monkeyface. American tax dollars are going to protect all of these rare clams and more.

The Federal Expenditure Reports need to be restored and made publicly available in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Congress needs to look closely at the allocation of federal funding among the species. We should only list what we can afford to protect.

The Endangered Species Act requires a "Report to Congress on Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures." It appears that the federal portion alone amounts to well over a billion dollars a year. Clearly, there is an entire industry here. What the specific spending is for, and w...

05/12/2026

CFACT recently took its shareholder activism directly to three major utility company shareholder meetings, pressing Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, and Enbridge on whether their renewable energy and ESG-driven strategies truly serve reliability, affordability, and shareholder value.

Share the facts at CFACT: https://www.cfact.org/2026/05/12/cfact-presses-utility-giants-on-costly-green-energy-fence-sitting/

The most revealing exchange came at Dominion Energy’s 2026 shareholder meeting on May 5, where CFACT national director Nate Myers challenged the company’s continued promotion of “increasing clean energy,” carbon reductions, solar, and offshore wind. Myers asked how Dominion’s management can justify investments in intermittent energy sources as better for reliability, affordability, and shareholder returns when solar and wind cannot replace firm generation.

CFACT’s question about renewables was echoed by others in the meeting. Another shareholder pressed Dominion CEO Robert Blue on why the company is investing so heavily in solar and wind while America still has abundant natural gas and nuclear power. The shareholder also questioned why Dominion sold off parts of its gas business while shareholders have watched the stock lag and the dividend remain flat.

Blue responded by defending Dominion’s “all of the above” strategy, saying the company is not investing only in solar or wind, but also in nuclear and natural gas. He pointed to Dominion’s five-year, $65 billion capital expenditure plan, stating that about 25 percent is going toward natural gas and nuclear, while 15 percent is going toward solar, storage, and wind. Still, Blue conceded a central point raised in CFACT’s question: Solar and wind “are not dispatchable” and operate only when “the sun is shining and the wind is blowing,” while natural gas and nuclear are available when needed.

That admission matters. Dominion’s own answer confirmed the concern CFACT raised: intermittent renewables require backup, storage, and continued reliance on traditional power sources to justify their addition to the grid, almost always at the cost of higher prices for ratepayers. For shareholders, the question remains: why does Dominion continue to pour nearly $10 billion dollars into politically favored energy projects while customer demand, especially from data centers, is making dispatchable baseload power more important than ever? Utility companies cannot continue to map the national grid’s future based solely off the direction of political winds. The result will be a weaker, more unreliable grid, not an empowered one.

CFACT also voted in favor of two allied shareholder proposals at Dominion’s shareholder meeting. The first, submitted by the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), called for Dominion to adopt a policy requiring an independent board chair. CFACT voted in favor of the proposal because Dominion CEO Robert Blue currently serves as both chairman and chief executive, concentrating authority in the same leadership structure driving the company’s renewable energy and “clean energy” strategy. The proposal received 24.48 percent in favor and 75.52 percent against and was not approved.

The second allied proposal, submitted by the Heritage Foundation, requested a report on Dominion’s use of environmental, social and governance (ESG) and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) metrics in executive compensation plans. CFACT also voted in favor of the Heritage proposal because shareholders deserve to know whether executives are being rewarded for operational performance or for meeting ideological target metrics. The proposal received 1.32 percent in favor and 98.68 percent against and was also not approved.

During Enbridge’s shareholder meeting the following day, CFACT, via Myers, likewise pressed the company on renewable energy capital allocation, asking how Enbridge can justify a $900 million investment in Texas solar projects such as Clear Fork and Sequoia Solar when solar cannot reliably power 24/7 AI data centers on demand and must compete against the company’s core dispatchable energy infrastructure. Enbridge had no allied shareholder proposals on the ballot, but CFACT’s question echoed the concerns of many others in attendance.

Lastly, during Duke Energy’s shareholder meeting on May 7, Mr. Myers submitted a question asking why Duke executives are rewarded for environmental and energy-modernization metrics instead of strictly for reliability, affordability, safety, and shareholder returns. While Duke did not face any shareholder proposals from CFACT allies, the meeting still raised major questions about the company’s energy priorities. In response to a shareholder’s question about the company’s outlook on nuclear power and small modular reactors, Duke emphasized that it operates the largest regulated nuclear fleet in the country while side-stepping a direct response or firm commitment to new nuclear development. It seems Duke’s board would rather straddle the fence between eco-activism and common-sense grid planning in an attempt to wait out the Trump presidency.

Across all three meetings, CFACT used its shareholder status to confront utility companies on the same core issue: whether management is prioritizing dependable, affordable energy and shareholder returns or chasing renewable energy fanfare and federal subsidies. Dominion’s meeting showed the most promise. The company faced direct pressure on renewables, shareholder return, board independence, and ESG compensation — and CFACT was there, voting and speaking out alongside a host of other outraged shareholders who want utilities focused on reliable power, not political energy schemes.

CFACT recently took its shareholder activism directly to three major utility company shareholder meetings, pressing Dominion Energy, Duke Energy, and Enbridge on whether their renewable energy and ESG-driven strategies truly serve reliability, affordability, and shareholder value. The most revealing...

05/11/2026

Your casserole went stale and your mayo turned bad, along with a few pastries. But that’s okay since you’re taking one for the team and doing your part to save the planet! Those nasty plastics will bring about death and destruction. Or so you’ve been told...

Share the facts at CFACT.org: https://www.cfact.org/2026/05/11/green-machine-targets-plastics-at-consumer-expense/

In reality, green activists operating in the name of “sustainability” have joined forces with corporate interests to increase consumer prices and coerce inferior products into the marketplace. All in the name of combatting plastics — and the motivations are not difficult to understand. Green activists who have lost ground on their climate agenda under President Donald Trump have repackaged that same agenda under a different name. As to the corporations, they are only too pleased to limit competition and charge consumers more, while giving off the appearance of being concerned about the environment.
Here’s the deal

Pressure groups including the U.S. Plastics Pact, the Consumer Goods Forum, and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, have joined with heavy hitters like Coca-Cola, Target, Unilever, Mondelez, and Nestle to impose burdensome environmental targets. These include: arbitrary recycled-content quotas and directives to redesign everyday packaging — just to make certain products are as expensive as possible.

Fortunately, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has entered the fray to take on the “sustainability agenda.” Earlier this month, he initiated an anti-trust investigation and issued Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) to the plastics trade groups and the corporations complicit with their agenda.

In a statement Uthmeier said, “Environmental groups are pressuring corporations to abandon free market principles and raise prices on consumers for products they don’t want.”

Contrary to what green activists would like the public to believe, plastics come with significant benefits as a direct result human innovation. They keep food fresh, alleviate waste, make products lighter and therefore more affordable. They also contribute to life-saving medical devices.

If environmental activists turned government bureaucrats were genuinely interested in environmental improvements, they would focus on more efficient waste management, enhanced recycling infrastructure, and biodegradable innovations. But none of those solutions are on the table. Instead, the radicals push a top-down policy approach that suffocates the free market.

Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, took down the concept of “sustainable development” in an interview with Restoration News, saying:

What needs to be understood about ‘sustainable development’ is that what is being peddled is itself unsustainable. Absent government mandates, industry collusion, and interminable lawsuits, the alternatives to plastics could not stand on their own two feet. The marketplace, which reflects consumer preferences, is the best place to separate the sheep from the goats. Just as the PC vanquished the electric typewriter, and internet transmissions quashed the fax machine, superior products prevail over inferior ones. But this is an arena the anti-plastics lobby does not dare to enter. They know they will lose. Florida’s attorney general sees this game for what it is, and is to be applauded for taking appropriate action. May other state AGs follow his example.

“Sustainability” is an invention of the United Nation’s Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held as part of the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992. The agenda aimed to spur action at the international, national, regional and local levels with the common goal of achieving “sustainable development,” which the U.N. defines as an approach to growth and development that satisfies contemporary needs without undermining the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

At a time when the climate agenda is running up against scientific facts and economic realities; let’s not give that agenda new life under a different name.

Time to face facts. The war on plastics amounts to nothing more than a war on modern conveniences made possible by the innovations inherent in the free market. The green cultists would prefer humanity return to a time when casseroles and mayonnaise spoil in hours instead of days, and cell phones use inferior materials and fall apart in months.

Thankfully, Florida AG James Uthmeier has initiated anti-trust investigations to put an end to this nonsense in the corporate world, and to put a stake through the heart of “sustainability.”

Anti-trust investigations team up with pressure groups to target producers. Your casserole went stale and your mayo turned bad, along with a few pastries. But that's okay since you're taking one for the team and doing your part to save the planet! Those nasty plastics will bring about death and dest...

05/09/2026

The regulatory machinery of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is incredibly overdone, often making the reasonable use of regulated land impossible. Congress needs to fix this.

Share the facts at CFACT.org: https://www.cfact.org/2026/05/09/endangered-species-act-regulatory-overkill/

The law itself is pretty simple but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has interpreted it in an extreme way. The law says you cannot harm an endangered species. FWS has interpreted “harm” to include any change in the species’ habitat that might affect it. Cutting down a tree that an endangered bird might happen to nest in is considered harm.

The law actually allows for property development within an endangered species habitat. It is called an “incidental take” permit because every habitat change is considered a “taking” of the species. FWS has stretched this language to the limit.

The problem is that FWS has made incidental take permits so expensive that only rich landowners can afford them. Since most of us are not rich this incredible fee structure has made reasonable development impossible.

This taking fee overkill can be seen in an example from Florida. A landowner with a modest five acre plot wanted to build a house on that land. The incidental take fee was a choking $139,440 which made building impossible. The landowner has asked the Court to overturn this destructive fee structure but it is really Congress’s job to do that.

This case is from Charlotte County, Florida, one of a number of American jurisdiction to do what is called a regional Habitat Conservation Plan, which is required to get an ESA incidental take permit. The County then sublets the take to local landowners who want to improve their property.

The horrendous ESA fee structure is usually secret but Charlotte County has published theirs here.

For anything over 100 acres, such as developing agricultural land, the ESA fee is a punitive $2,289,700. This pretty much rules out agricultural development. Ironically it invites things like malls and data centers that sterilize the land. Developing even the smallest piece of land, up to 0.22 acres, costs $2,032.

In most of America where there are endangered species about the landowner has to directly apply to FWS for an incidental take permit in order to develop their land. The required Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is very expensive and time consuming. So much so that doing HCPs for landowners has become a lucrative industry.

Even worse FWS has ruled that their approval of every HCP has to go through the laborious National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This is truly strange given that there are no direct impacts on the endangered species, just on its habitat.

In sharp contrast the National Marine Fisheries Service issues incidental take permits to actually harass and harm protected marine mammals without going through NEPA. The Dominion Energy offshore wind project is authorized to harass and harm almost 60,000 marine mammals. NEPA is not involved.

The situation is clear. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Endangered Species Act regulations seriously distort Congressional intent. They make it almost impossible for anyone except the rich to develop land within the extensive habitat of an endangered or threatened species. Not just in Florida but throughout America.

The Endangered Species Act is not the problem; it is the extreme regulations that Congress must constrain.

The regulatory machinery of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is incredibly overdone, often making the reasonable use of regulated land impossible. Congress needs to fix this. The law itself is pretty simple but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has interpreted it in an extreme way. The law sa...

05/08/2026

Debunking the ‘fingerprint of climate change’ – Dismantling claims that climate is causing homelessness, and setting the record straight about heatwaves, storms, wildfires, and hailstorms – Plus, the Atlantic Current is NOT on the brink of collapse.

Share the facts at CFACT.org: https://www.cfact.org/2026/05/08/48394/

Debunking the ‘fingerprint of climate change’ - Dismantling claims that climate is causing homelessness, and setting the record straight about heatwaves, storms, wildfires, and hailstorms - Plus, the Atlantic Current is NOT on the brink of collapse. Read the full climate fact check here

05/07/2026

The Netherlands discriminating against meat in the name of climate? Could dairy be next? Fine Dutch Gouda is a human right.

LISTEN NOW at

"The climate crisis is very urgent. I mean, if you want to be leading in climate policies and you rent out your walls to exactly the opposite, then what are you doing? Most people don't understand why the municipality should make money out of renting our public space with something that we are

05/06/2026

Smart energy and environmental policies work for people and nature both. Leftism destroys both.

Share the facts at CFACT.org: https://www.cfact.org/2026/05/06/what-about-earths-threatened-and-endangered-people/

Another Earth Day has come and gone – number 57, like Heinz steak sauce. Once again, the media, activists and international agencies fed us pablum, exaggeration and alarmism.

Our public lands, the Endangered Species Act, biodiversity and environmental justice are under threat, they raged. Oceans are filling with plastic waste. Big polluting corporations are getting away with “climate homicide” and “planetary ecocide.” The Arctic is melting, and polar bear cubs are drowning.

The United Nations took a short break from bashing Israel over “Palestinian genocide” and western nations for the “gravest crime” ever committed against humanity (trans-Atlantic slavery), to proclaim April 22 “International Mother Earth Day” and call for an end to “crimes” that “disrupt biodiversity.”

Activists held the “first multilateral conference” on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels. Their “Our Power, Our Planet” theme says further progress will require that communities and individuals pressure governments to accelerate the “clean” energy transition from “dirty” fossil fuels.

Forgive my skepticism. But I was a college organizer for very first Earth Day (1970), back when we had real, highly visible environmental problems: air pollution and toxic smog over cities, industrial water pollution that made it unsafe to swim, leaded gasoline, and more. We largely solved those problems.

Since then, greens have grown in domestic and foreign financing, power and influence, and the ability to conduct ideological campaigns and lawfare on issues of irrelevance to the vast majority of Americans, let alone families in the most energy-deprived, destitute, diseased and malnourished nations on our planet.

Any yet, for days leading up to Earth Day and afterward, virtually nothing was said by the UN, WHO, eco-activists, media screed-meisters or I-care-deeply politicians about these people … or even about people in their own developed countries who bear the brunt of climate-centric, anti-growth, net-zero, de-industrialization, lower-living-standards policies.

It’s as if people don’t exist, and don’t belong, on our planet. The human herd must be culled.

In the developed world, most climate-focused countries and states have the most pseudo-clean energy mandates and subsidies … the highest electricity prices … the highest prices for goods and services. They’re destroying entire industries, leaving thousands unemployed. They have the technologies to utilize their abundant carbon and nuclear energy, but ruling elites don’t want citizens to enjoy jobs and living standards based on that energy. Each year thousands die needlessly during frigid winters and summer heatwaves because families cannot afford or obtain proper heating and air conditioning.

The “climate crisis” is s Hollywood special effects disaster movie. The foundation for any “clean” energy transition is imaginary. Utopian energy is simply not clean, green, renewable or sustainable.

When wind turbines, solar panels, transformers, transmission lines and backup batteries or power plants are included, wind and solar energy require dozens of times more raw materials (and thus mining and pollution) and hundreds of times more land than just building a few nuclear or combined-cycle gas plants close to where electricity is needed – and forgetting about any pseudo-renewable systems.

For families in poor nations, the price tag is infinitely higher.

Worldwide, 730 million people still have no access to electricity. Billions more have minimal, sporadic access. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 600 million have no electricity; hundreds of millions more have minimal, unpredictable electricity from small wind turbines and solar panels here and there. The situation in much of rural Asia and Latin America is little better. Ditto for vehicles and gasoline.

The result is entirely predictable. Almost no wage-earning jobs or mechanized farming, but abundant backbreaking work for parents and children in fields – and plenty of malnutrition, disease and death.

Over half the world’s people (more than four billion) still subsist on $10 a day.

More than 260 million suffer from critical food insecurity and malnutrition, and 35 million children are acutely malnourished, including 10 million with childhood wasting disease – leaving them with weak immune systems and vulnerable to developmental delays, disease and death

Malaria still infects 280,000,000 people annually and kills 610,000. Indoor air pollution from wood, dung, coal and kerosene cooking and heating fires kills nearly 3,000,000 people globally every year. Up to 3.5 million – mostly children – die annually due to inadequate safe water, sanitation and hygiene. Diseases modern western societies never even hear about sicken, disable or kill still more millions.

Do you think any of their grieving families gives a spotted owl hoot that your local temperature climbed a degree since the Little Ice Age ended, or a polar bear cub drowned halfway around the world?

A major reason is rampant corruption. The World Bank found that at least 7.5% (and as much as 15% or more) of total assistance to the most aid-dependent nations ends up in ruling elites’ foreign bank accounts. And yet the WB’s International Development Association received $94 billion for the 2022-2025 period. Multilateral development bank financing to top humanitarian recipients was $12 billion in 2020. Total worldwide Official Development Assistance reached a record $161.2 billion in 2020. Do the math.

Far worse, these banks, US and European foundations, and climate, agricultural and other activist groups work tirelessly to prevent these countries from acquiring or developing the electricity and other energy they need to emerge from squalor, starvation and disease. For decades these virtue-signaling banks have provided loans only for wind and solar projects – almost never for coal or gas power plants.

The result? Expensive, limited, unreliable electricity. No modern hospitals, schools, water purification, factories or shops. Continued pollution from wood and dung fuels. No jobs, improved living standards or reductions in killer diseases.

The same institutions – along with UN and other government agencies – oppose pesticides for eradicating locusts and malarial mosquitoes. They wage campaigns against biotech corn, soybeans, canola, and even hybrid seeds and life-saving Golden Rice. They pressure African governments to ban non-organic fertilizers and crop-saving pesticides that have been approved as safe in wealthy countries. Many even oppose tractors and other mechanized equipment.

To them, the only acceptable farming method is “agro-ecology” – la Via Campesina: the Peasant Way – aka, “traditional,” “organic,” backbreaking subsistence farming.

This, corruption, wars and food-deprivation as a weapon of war is why we still have malnutrition, starvation, disease and astronomical death tolls in African and other impoverished countries.

These global zealots want power over poor countries – not power for the countries’ destitute and desperate people. Their morally depraved policies and practices bring death to millions every year.

Developing countries should avoid doing what rich nations are doing now that they are rich. Instead, they should do what rich nations did to become rich. They should remember that wealthy industrialized countries did not have MDBs to help them; they created institutions to finance the power generation and factories that created jobs, middle classes, health, prosperity, new industries … and taxes to pay for more.

They must chart their own destiny – and take their rightful places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people. Decent, moral Westerners must help them end the corruption and make this happen.

Another Earth Day has come and gone – number 57, like Heinz steak sauce. Once again, the media, activists and international agencies fed us pablum, exaggeration and alarmism. Our public lands, the Endangered Species Act, biodiversity and environmental justice are under threat, they raged. Oceans a...