[Former Proud Canadian]

You wrote: "The enviro wackos want us to live in trees...."

No, Mr. Dallas59, they expect you to die....

[Dallas59]

But they get to live to make sure everyone else is dead....

[BlueDragon]

No, Mr. Dallas59, they expect you to die....

That's about right. I used to think they would be satisfied with reducing us all to grubbing with our hands. But what of the environmental impacts to nature then?
We'd be disturbing hallowed grubs, and that simply won't do.

Meanwhile, I do wonder why fishermen are not allowed to harvest, but some power plants do NOT seem to be participating in fishery closures.

...perhaps that should be looked at, or at least considered.

But how? Where to draw the lines? This judge;

was reversed by the higher court for "ruling that while the EPA may consider the cost posed to power plants, the agency may not use a cost-benefit analysis."

So- what now? What the heck is BTA (best technology available)? If one is desirous of not negatively affecting sea life in the way of 316(b) issues, then some other method of cooling other than once-through sea water, looks to be unavoidable. Retro-fitting won't be cheap. If it comes to cooling towers --- where will the water come from? What effect will the water, in the way of blow-off steam, have downwind from the plant? (put yer' garden right there, mateys!)