Today, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will be announcing a major chunk of funding for the city’s commercial and residential energy efficiency program, called SF Energy Watch. Since it began in 2007, the program has been successful in creating 150 green collar jobs, and offers services like free on-site assessments of energy usage.
- Clean Energy
- Climate Change
- Fossil Fuels
- Natural Resources
- Political Spectrum
- Sponsored Post
- Truth or Consequences
If you watched last night’s debate, you heard the question: What will you do in your first term to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
Did either candidate actually answer the question? Not really. But here’s why McCain’s answer of offshore-drilling-nuclear-power-wind-solar-geothermal-natural-gas is completely bogus.
Last week, Paris Hilton responded to John McCain’s “celebrity” ad with a surprisingly well-done response. While hilarious—and rest assured that numerous internet commenters have already given Paris props for the rebuttal—viewers may be giving to much credit to the “Paris Hilton Energy Plan.”
Watching the news is a dangerous enterprise for those of us trying to maintain a clear picture of this election season’s most important issues. Despite all the chatter, it seems relatively obvious that our most fundamental problem is American energy policy, or more specifically: oil prices and our dependence on cheap energy.
If you buy that premise, which I’m prepared to debate elsewhere, then this election should really only be decided by one evaluation criterion: which candidate has a better plan to reduce our oil consumption, replace it with viable alternatives, and spur innovation and commercial development of new technologies (and a new green-collar economy)?