A Presidential Candidates Pissing Match?
Originally published on the ECOreport.
In the midst of what is probably the ugliest pre-election contests of recent memory, one of California’s best known solar companies has gotten into the act with a campaign of its own. For its “Who’s the Brightest Candidate?” campaign, Sungevity used its remote solar design software to calculate how much solar capacity each candidate could put on his or her roof. So, is this a presidential candidates pissing match — who’s roof can stack the most solar?
A Presidential Candidates Pissing Match?
Given his ostentatious personality, it should come as no surprise to find that Donald Trump is way out front in terms of size, with room for a whopping 33.3 kW system. Bernie Sander’s humbler, though still large, abode trails far behind the others with a mere 8.7 kW — but that is missing the point.
This isn’t meant to be a contest. Sungevity is issuing a challenge.
Sungevity’s inspiration comes from the 2010 Earth Day gala at the Rose Garden when Sungevity co-founder Danny Kennedy asked President Obama to put solar panels on the White House. It was not a simple request. When President Jimmy Carter put panels on the White House, in 1979, America was poised to launch the solar revolution. Only, Ronald Reagan was elected president the following year — the panels were taken off and the United States basically stood by while other nations developed a technology America invented. Though Obama responded, “Good idea, let’s do that,” he didn’t follow through. So, with the help of Bill McKibben’s 350.org, Sungevity launched the Globama campaign, which is credited with convincing the Obama Administration to put solar panels back on the White House in 2014.
Now, Sungevity is launching another campaign for the 2016 election. It has drawn up quotes entirely customized to match the solar potential of each candidate’s rooftop. People can tweet directly at the candidates and urge them to be the Brightest Candidate at blog.sungevity.com/brightest-candidate.
“Who’s the Brightest Candidate?”
In a press release sent to us directly, Sungevity writes:
“Throughout the 2016 election, candidates have preached about fiscal responsibility, economic opportunity and job creation – all benefits that solar energy can deliver. Sungevity is challenging the major candidates – Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump – to be leaders in the “Rooftop Revolution” by going solar. Nearly one million American households have already gone solar, catapulting the industry into the national spotlight. In the U.S. alone, the solar industry employs more than 200,000 U.S. workers and GTM Research projects another record year for solar in 2016 with installations reaching 16 GWdc, a 119% increase over 2015.
“The reality of solar is catching on and very soon millions more U.S. homes will have a solar system. It’s better for the pocketbook, for the planet, for the economy, for security – it’s humanity’s next big step,” said Danny Kennedy, Sungevity’s co-founder, environmental champion and author of Rooftop Revolution, How Solar Power Can Save Our Economy – and Our Planet – from Dirty Energy.
“We need elected leaders, solar advocates, activists, entrepreneurs and consumers to bring about this change right now,” Kennedy said. “American voters have the right to know which presidential candidate is truly committed to building a clean energy future.”
Does this campaign sound like something dreamed up in Sungevity’s PR department?
Probably, but I enjoyed getting a peak at those rooflines.
All images courtesy Sungevity
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
If you are putting in Gary Johnson, why not Jill Stein?
If they are putting Clinton and Trump in they might as well include Jill Stein and the other top candidates stopping at a total of 10.
The American media pretend Jill Stein doesn’t exist. They tried to do that with Bernie until he became so popular they couldn’t get away with it. This treatment is reserved for left-wingers.
Stein – “Key points of the Power to the People Plan:
A Green New Deal:
Create millions of jobs by transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030, and investing in public transit, sustainable agriculture, and conservation.”
Same problem that Bernie had. Wonderful goal. But unrealistic.
Even if we elected a totally Green Party Congress there is no realistic way to move completely off fossil fuels in less than 14 years. Not only getting all coal and natural gas off the grid but also crushing all ICEVs and replacing them with EVs. Finding a non-petroleum fuel for planes and ships. Electrifying rail. Even were the US president given dictatorial powers it wouldn’t happen.
When candidates make promises they obviously can’t keep they aren’t taken seriously by serious people. Like Trump building a wall all along the Mexican/US border and making Mexico pay for it.
But Trump gets coverage 24/7. Stein should get some.
She’d have to make some news in order to get coverage, would she not?
Truthfully, the Green Party in the US shot itself in both feet and both ass cheeks when it ran Nader and assisted George W. Bush in becoming president.
I sometimes voted Green in state and local campaigns but after the Nader screw up I don’t think I could every vote with that bunch of dimwits again.
Anyone who votes works for or votes for Stein is assisting Donald Trump. You may not like that reality, but that’s the reality in which you live.
You either vote for the lesser evil (if that’s how you view the candidate who is closest to your goals) or you help the greater evil.
I want to know how each candidate will reduce global pollution.
Any US president is able to do something about pollution in the US, not so much in other countries.
Here’s a first hint on how things would go.
Donald Trump has stated that he will put coal miners back to mining coal. That would mean that US air and water pollution would increase.
Hillary Clinton has laid out a plan to install a very large amount of solar which would result in less air and water pollution.
Sure she will; while at the same time pushing natural gas and endless war. Here’s a hint of how it will go; she will do whatever her corporate masters demand. She’s more than qualified to be the republican candidate. No thanks, my vote will never go to her.
Cool, Knetter. Trump for the win, eh?
Just remember, if he gets in then you are responsible for the way he f*cks up everything.
Coal mines reopen and we restart coal plants? Thank Knetter, he was in for the assist.
Reopen the coal mines? The poor coal miners are the only people who believe it. Trump is shameless.
We are closing coal mines. We’re doing that with a combination of renewables and natural gas. We need natural gas while we develop economic storage.
I realize that some people think we shouldn’t use natural gas, but not using it means burning more coal and burning it for a lot more years.
She’ll support the status quo for Wind and Solar PV. That’s all she has to do to for us to win that battle and get a lot more lower-cost clean energy deployed.
Consider the alternative.
You’re going to vote for a guy who wants to resuscitate a dying industry? Brilliant for both of you.
The pro-war candidate who supports renewables (ostensibly) versus a crazy man. The MIC wins either way. Funny how that works out.
“pro-war”
How about we tone down the hyperbole?
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/37400-democrats-are-now-the-aggressive-war-party
Do you actually believe the stuff in that article?
I hate to disappoint you, but I suspect virtually all Bernie supporters believe the thesis of this article: that Hillary is an avid interventionist. She has been endorsed by neo-cons. What’s more telling than that?
This is the principle reason many Bernie supporters are reluctant to support Hillary.
Do you have any evidence to refute anything in the article?
I realize that many of Bernie’s’ supporters believe this stuff.
That does not make it true.
Now, none of this has anything to do with clean energy and climate change. Let’s stick to topics appropriate for this site.
I wouldn’t call Hillary Clinton’s statement of “national goals” a *plan*.
A plan would be “solar panels on every government building”. That’s something which the President could actually DO by executive order. But she has no intention of making a concrete plan.
The only things on her Climate Change page which can be done without Congressional support are “Reform leasing on public lands” (only part of this can be done without Congressional support) and “Cut methane emissions” (which can be done by establishing anti-leak standards at the EPA level). “Defend efficiency standards” by appointing a sane person to the Supreme Court who will not overturn the existing laws would help too.
Still better than Trump, but don’t get too hopeful. I’ve been mentally disregarding any promises which require Congressional assistance. (Bernie had some interestingly aggressive plans which could be executed by executive order, and I wish it was possible to get Hillary to *think that way* because it’ll get more done.)
I don’t see a huge roll in renewable energy for US presidents going forward. As long as we don’t get someone in office who might disrupt progress.
At this point installation of renewables is largely an economic issue.
The rate of installation could be accelerated with a price on carbon but that’s not something a president could implement on their own. It would have to be first passed by Congress.
All she has to do is veto any effort to prematurely kill the ITC and we win the clean energy war. She’ll do that.
Any one else notice the fact that Bernie Sanders’ home is quite a bit smaller than the rest of the candidates. The net worth of Sanders is $700,000 according to Forbes, whereas the Clintons have $45 million, but they made $230 million since 2001. Frankly, I’m surprised that Sanders doesn’t already have solar panels on his roof considering how passionately he talks about climate change.
Just because Bernie and his wife have not been very successful in life I don’t think we should hold that against him.
They’ve been successful in life, but not so much in money making.
I’m past Bernie. I hope the young people he inspired keep pushing for his goals but I suspect Bern has run his course.
The American definition of success is indeed sad.
Thomas Paine died a pauper, having written the most read book of his time which inspired the American revolution.
omg…this is just the worst article ever on cleantech…just don’t know what to say. Trump has zero interest in renewables or conservation or helping anyone but him….
Excellent summary. Trump will raise taxes on everyone except real-estate builders/owners.