Paranoid brains at a think thank in Canada are demanding the Canadian government outlaw sending bulk shipments of water to the United States. The thirsty thinkers are worried that the drying West will eventually cause the US to look north for ways to keep their lawns green.

The Canadian government told the Polaris Institute to chill out, since the export of water as a commodity is illegal under NAFTA. But, the group points out that presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have been talking about making changes to NAFTA once they get into office. It's worth noting that much of this campaign rhetoric has focused on states suffering job losses that have been blamed on the free trade agreement, not on stealing Canada's water.

We suggest that instead of worrying about saving Canada's abundant fresh water resources from export, Canadians spend their energy trying to prevent the export of oil from tar sands. Not only is oil production from tar sands extremely degrading to the environment, it is also water intensive, using at least one barrel of water for ever barrel of oil produced. And since that oil is destined for the US, it's an equally effective way to stop the US from stealing Canada's water.

We've been expecting Al Gore to sweep out of left field and announce a presidential candidacy ever since the primaries got underway, but so far no dice (though we give a high-five to Grist for their awesome April Fool's post -- we fell for it).

Anyway, the Nobel-winning ex-Veep says he's not interested in running for the presidency again, and not interested in government in general. We might get the next best thing, though: Barack Obama has emphatically stated that he wants to call on Gore to fill a cabinet-level post to help deal with climate change.

At a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania, a supporter asked Obama yesterday if he'd pursue Gore's involvement. The answer? "I would. Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues, but climate change is real. It is something we have to deal with now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now."

While political strategists dismiss the possibility of Gore serving under Obama -- and it's unlikely that any president is going to create a cabinet-level Secretary of Climate Change position -- we wonder what would happen if Obama offered Gore the position of, say, Secretary of State. That might be a hard one to turn down, especially given the even larger platform it would give Gore to work internationally on climate change solutions.

You have to hand it to Google: We're not sure there's another company on earth that in the same week could be linked to business relationships with both the CIA and Earth Day organizers, without most of the public so much as batting an eye.

It certainly appears that the information monolith has mastered the art of playing both sides of the aisle. They want to save the earth, but they're not above helping the U.S. intelligence community spy on you. How very altruistic of them.

Google has been linked to environmental causes for years, which may be their way of making up for some decidedly earth un-friendly practices. Last weekend they took the symbolic step of "going dark" for Earth Hour. This week, the Earth Day Network said Google has agreed to help organizers flood the Capitol switchboard on Earth Day in an attempt to lobby lawmakers to support environmental legislation. The company will reportedly "help coordinate online advertisements and other publicity measures in support of the calls" for the April 22 event.

News of this partnership broke on the same day reports surfaced that Google would be lending technical assistance to the CIA and other intelligence agencies, including the search features for Intellipedia, a Wikipedia-style site for people with very high security clearance on which agents can post information about their targets.

Oddly, it looks like the only outlet to pick up the Earth Day news was the conservative Washington Times, (founded by this guy), where the article incited a near riot in the comments section. Let's just say more than a few Times readers have now declared their allegiance to Yahoo!

As we mentioned earlier, Al Gore and his Alliance for Climate Protection are on a mission to lobby Congress to enact meaningful climate change legislation. But we seriously wonder whether their -- and our -- expectations might be just a tad high, given that lawmakers can't even agree on what kind of lights to use at the Capitol.

More proof that everything is partisan: Republicans are balking at a plan to replace the Capitol's 18-year-old lights with a more energy-efficient system because they say the cost of the project is not worth the energy savings. They also question why the $671,000 contract was given to a company from the House Administration Committee chairman's district.

"Everyone supports making the Capitol more energy efficient, but we don't have to waste taxpayer dollars to do it," said House Minority Leader John Boehner. So does that mean you're offering to install the lights yourself, Mr. Congressman, or are you just waiting for a company to offer their services free of charge?

The lighting system project is part of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "Green the Capitol" initiative, which includes using more recycled paper, distributing more documents electronically and purchasing carbon offsets. We eagerly await the Republican response to this "recycling" idea.

The Department of Homeland Security has until the end of the year to finish a 700-mile stretch of fencing along the Mexican border, and apparently the agency isn't going to let any of those pesky environmental laws and regulations get in the way.

Yesterday, the Bush administration said it would waive 30 environmental reviews in order to allow DHS to complete the remaining 470 miles of fence on time. The waivers will affect environmentally sensitive areas in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The move, permitted by a Congressional exemption, means DHS won't have to conduct reviews about how the fence may affect water quality, vegetation and wildlife, including migration patterns.

So far, the agency has completed about 300 of the 700 miles of fence, which is intended to curb illegal immigration. "We’re serious about delivering it, and these waivers will enable important security projects to keep moving forward," said DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff.

The New York Times called it "a sweeping use of its authority," though "abuse" is probably the much better word here. Legal experts said the waivers will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for successful legal challenges. We wonder what's in store for the other 1,200 miles of U.S.-Mexican border.

Driving in New York City could get a lot more aggravating -- though more environmentally-friendly -- as the city council voted 30-20 on Monday approving Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan.

The plan still has to pass in Albany, but if it does, Bloomberg said drivers could be paying more by next year. Many of New York's power brokers have been on record in favor of congestion pricing, including the influential Republican Senate majority leader and New York Gov. David Patterson, who reportedly told Bloomberg he "had to tell" the Democratic Assembly Speaker, who is not thrilled with the idea.

We just hope that Patterson doesn't have to steamroll anyone in Albany to get this passed. Supposedly, the city's garage owners have been fighting the plan because they are afraid fewer cars in the city will translate into less cars in their garage. We think that's insane, as will anyone who has tried to find a spot on the street between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.

Drivers entering Manhattan below 60th Street Monday-Friday, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., will have to pay $8 with their EZ pass and $9 without one. Drivers paying with an EZ pass may get credit for whatever tolls they paid that day entering the city if they are coming from New Jersey, since Garden State residents already have to pay $8 for the privilege of entering the city by tunnel anyway.

Woodsy Owl. The crying American Indian. Your brain on drugs. Al Gore.

As you've probably heard by now, the former Vice President has entered the world of large-scale advocacy campaigns, with a three-year, $300 million advertising blitz beginning today aimed at promoting climate change awareness, education and solutions.

The Alliance For Climate Protection campaign, called "we" (as in "we can solve the climate crisis"), will utilize most media platforms in its attempt to spread the word to as many people as possible. The first online spot is narrated by actor William H. Macy and equates the battle against climate change with the fight against fascism during World War II and landing a man on the moon. The first television commercials debut tonight during shows such as "House" and "Law & Order"

The Macy-narrated ad, while a bit too heavy on the melodrama, is none-the-less a good starting point. What we're really looking forward to are the forthcoming Alliance commercials featuring unlikely pairings in support of the same cause: The Dixie Chicks and Toby Keith; Newt Gingrich and Rep. Nancy Pelosi; and our favorite, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson.

Last week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy met to discuss how their nuclear scientists could work together developing nuclear power technology to export and license around the world in an effort to reduce greenhouse gases. Yeah, nuclear power does have zero emissions, but you know what else does too? Solar and wind and geothermal. And we'd like to see a terrorist try and turn a windmill into a weapon of mass destruction.

Ah yes, nuclear power: If there's an issue that divides even us EnviroWonks, this is it. We certainly admire the passion on both sides. Best example: Women in Finland threatened not to make any babies for four years if the government went through constructing a new reactor (The Finnish government called their bluff).

France gets about 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy, while the UK generates about 20 percent. But British Business Secretary John Hutton is trying to frame the increase as an economic boon, explaining that replacing the UK's 23 reactors alone will generate £20 billion for British businesses. Know what else will boost GDP? Cleaning up after a meltdown, but we digress.

Hutton, in a dismissal of facts that would impress Dick Cheney, brushed off concerns about nuclear waste disposal, explaining "I do not think there's a long-term argument about how it should be done. There's an argument about where it should be done, but the how is pretty well clear now. It will be a combination of on-site storage pending the establishment and creation of new geological depositories. That's the path that most other countries have taken. I think it's the path that we should take." We're not sure which countries he's talking about, but it sure isn't the U.S.