From the ABQJournal:
If you listen to campaign rhetoric on energy issues, the two presidential candidates offer a clear choice.
If you favor oil drilling and nuclear power, John McCain is your man. If you think conservation and an expansion of renewable energy is the key to our nation's energy future, Barack Obama is the better choice.
Behind the rhetoric, energy policy experts say, are significant similarities in some areas. But some critics say there are holes in both candidates' energy policy prescriptions that at times make them sound more like a list of bullet points aimed at corralling votes than a coherent energy policy.
...
But economists question Obama's claim that his program would create 5 million new jobs. In the long run, such programs merely shift jobs from one economic sector to another, resulting in no net job creation, argues Appalachian State University environmental economist John Whitehead. Regions that have opportunities in wind and solar energy could see job growth, Whitehead said, but they will be offset nationally by job losses in regions that produce energy from more traditional sources like coal. New Mexico has abundant wind and solar energy resources, but it is also a coal-producing state.
Whitehead said incentives for alternative energy make good economic sense because of the environmental problems caused by traditional fossil fuels. But arguing for the policy based on job growth is "totally bogus," he said.
If the ABQJournal link doesn't work try Women Impacting Public Policy.
