In a 6-3 April Fools decision, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that new power plants will not have to install upgrades if the costs are considered more than the benefit they are meant to create. Essentially, this means that the value of the life of fish will be weighed against the expense of protecting them.

What is the value of the fish in our waterways? Are they worth protecting? At what cost? Would you be willing to pay more for energy to protect fish? Are there better ways to meet our energy needs than to build new power plants that endanger fish?

I believe we need to reduce our energy consumption by 50%. It won't be easy, but I believe it's doable.

The U.S. makes up 5% of the world population, yet consumes 24% of the world's energy. I find this disturbing.

Here's the link to the AP article on the ruling: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hvQe8yoyeEmLANCRFob3KRZUKhjQD979T2JO0