beforetheend.org

When it does come to dealing with governments that might not adhere to U.S. standards of free speech, Kimber said the company is well-prepared. “Like all social networks, we are very much in touch with all the government agencies and the like. We have a massive user base already, and we’re very much on the forefront of how this whole industry evolves,” he said. Referring to his experience at Google, he added, “I’ve had a lot of dialogue with regulators throughout the area.”

Kimber said the latest round will be used to hire more employees, specifically engineering talent, and opening more offices across the Asian continent. He named Singapore, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia as four countries where he’ll have an executive presence.

Kimber insisted in an interview on Tuesday that he hadn’t implied anything political. “It’s more about the fact that the Internet enables…people to connect with people that they haven’t been able to connect with,” he explained. “I really do think social networking has a very important role to play alongside the access to information.”

Indeed, to fuel that growth, the company has raised $20 million. IDG Ventures was joined in the round by all of Friendster’s previous investors: Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Benchmark Capital, DAG Ventures, and the Founders Fund (which also invested in Facebook). The last round of funding the company raised was $10 million just less than two years ago.

Friendster has more than 75 million members to date. While many are still in the States, Kimber said the company will maintain its Asia-centric strategy and that any U.S. marketing will be targeted toward audiences with close ties to Asian countries.

Updated at 7:24 a.m. PT on Tuesday with comment from Richard Kimber.

Brush off your Monty Python and the Holy Grail references: although long forgotten by social-media junkies in the United States, Friendster is not dead yet. The pioneering social network announced on Tuesday that it has raked in $20 million in venture funding led by IDG Ventures and has hired Richard Kimber as its new CEO.

Kimber was hired from Google, of all places, where he served as the regional managing director in Southeast Asia. That’s key for Friendster, which has seen most of its recent growth in the Asia-Pacific region, to the point where it’s now the No. 1 social network in countries such as Singapore, as well as the Asian leader overall, according to ComScore. Friendster has been translating the site into different Asian languages and focusing on growth there rather than trying to patch things up in the States.

He takes over from Kent Lindstrom, who will remain on Friendster’s payroll after serving as CEO since early 2006. Founder Jonathan Abrams left amid the site’s U.S. decline, and he now runs an invitation start-up called Socializr.

“We’re continuing to focus on the international component of the U.S. market: Americans that are interested in Asia and that have connections in Asia,” he said. “We’re going to pursue a segment strategy for the U.S. and then a much broader strategy in Asia.”

“Friendster is growing at an enormous rate in Asia-Pacific and is clearly leading the competition. I believe this is partly because the Internet is transforming the lives of everyone, and it will probably become one of the greatest liberators of our time,” Kimber said in a statement that seemed tinged with mild political undertones. “I look forward to growing our business further, as we continue our global growth and strong focus on Asia.”

CableCard was incompatible with Switched Digital Video (SDV) technology, which more cable providers are–or will soon be–utilizing to deliver more HD channels despite bandwidth limitations. As a result, CableCard devices such as the TiVo HD DVR need an outboard tuner (basically, a second cable box) to receive those channels, which often include the newest and most desirable HD stations.

And why will companies like TiVo bother developing Tru2way boxes if the consumer will be forced to use the drab cable company interface versus the far superior TiVo UI? Just imagine, for instance, if a future Apple TV offers Tru2way compatibility, but instead of its slick Apple home screen, you’re stuck with a Comcast/Time Warner/Cox EPG the minute you toggle to live TV. For most users, that would eliminate the whole reason for upgrading in the first place.

The CableCard installation and setup still required the cable companies to “roll a truck” to the customer’s home–so it didn’t save the company any time or money versus a cable box setup.

Beyond the TV, Tru2way functionality could be built in to third-party DVRs (TiVo is already said to be working on a “Series4″ DVR that utilizes the technology) and accessories. Among the other possibilities: a Tru2way Slingbox with a built-in tuner; an adapter that turns the
Xbox 360 or
PS3 into a cable-ready DVR; true home theater PCs; and portable TV viewers (such as the Comcast/Panasonic player shown in January).

Color us skeptical
The bottom line is this: Tru2way certainly looks to offer the potential for cable customers to return to the simple, halcyon days of “cable ready” TVs–just one wire, just one remote. But until we see the products hit stores in the real world, and see how–or if–they work as advertised on cable systems around the country, color us skeptical. In the meantime, we’ll be waiting patiently in the downstairs rec room, sitting on hold with tech support, trying to get the CableCard PC up and running.

TVs with CableCard support often charged a slight premium over their non-CableCard counterparts–meaning that consumers were often paying more, but (as evidenced by the laundry list of issues above) getting less.

Tru2way is designed from the ground up to be interactive, customizable (for the cable provider), and plug-and-play. Switched digital video, video-on-demand, pay-per-view, HD channels, dual-tuner support–it should all work without a hitch, and deliver an identical experience on your local cable system, no matter which Tru2way TV you’re buying.

Sony joins Panasonic, Samsung, and RCA on the Tru2way roadmap, but whether any of these companies will actually deliver a real world Tru2way product before the end of the year remains to be seen. And even if they do, there are plenty of other questions. How much will cable companies charge you for the privilege of connecting a Tru2way product to their pipe? (Our guess: exactly the same fee they charge for renting the box you have now.)

CableCard setups are notoriously finicky, and often require one or more follow-up visits from the cable technician.

So what’s not to like? Nothing–except that none of this yet exists in the real world. Until you can actually buy one of these Tru2way products at Best Buy, Circuit City, or Amazon.com, it’s all theoretical.

There are plenty of other potential advantages. Tru2way TVs should be able to offer additional functionality, such as built-in DVRs. (A handful of CableCard DVR/TV combos were released, but they never took off, thanks largely to the problems outlined above.) And including the tuner inside the TV would offer the potential for better picture quality, since a TV signal native to the TV would no longer be reliant on the so-so video processing found on most set-top boxes.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because many of the same promises were made several years ago with a technology called CableCard. TVs that shipped with a CableCard slot were called “Digital Cable Ready” (DCR); they required a smart card, provided by your local cable operator, to receive digital and HD channels. The problem with CableCard was that it was an interim solution that satisfied nobody. Everyone–cable companies, hardware manufacturers, government regulators, and consumers–found CableCard technology lacking. Among the problems:

The electronic programming guide (EPG) interface on most CableCard TVs was either bare bones or nonexistent. That was bad for users who’ve grown used to increasingly sophisticated EPGs (on TiVo and satellite DVRs). It also frustrated cable providers who were used to controlling that interface on their own boxes, where–for better or worse–they could add advertisements, customized graphics, and other “branding” that so excites multimillion dollar corporations.

Original CableCard setups were limited to just one tuner, so dual-tuner applications–such as picture in picture and the ability to record one show while watching another–were unavailable. (This issue was addressed with dual slots on the TiVo HD, as well as the multi-stream “M-card,” which allowed for dual tuning–it was rarely deployed by cable operators.)

Not surprisingly, there was an immediate clamor for “CableCard 2.0″ to address all of those issues. And that’s effectively what Tru2way is: the next-gen CableCard, without the physical card. (You may have heard it mentioned during its years of development, when it was alternately referred to as “OpenCable” or “Open Cable Application Platform (OCAP)”.) And–on paper, at least–it seems as if CableLabs and its partners finally got it right this time.

CableCard was effectively a one-way technology, so it was incompatible with any interactive services, including video-on-demand and pay-per-view services that customers have grown to like, and cable companies depend on as a major revenue stream.

If the industry press is to be believed, Tuesday’s announcement that Sony would be producing TVs with Tru2way compatibility was a watershed event–the electronics world equivalent of the Magna Carta or the Treaty of Versailles. But let’s step back a bit and examine what this really means.

Tru2way is a digital cable technology developed by CableLabs that’s designed to be built directly into TVs, eliminating the need for an outboard set-top box. In theory, you’d be able to buy a Tru2way-compatible TV, bring it home, connect it to your coaxial cable, and instantly be able to receive your entire lineup of digital cable and high-def channels–including all the interactive video-on-demand and pay-per-view channels that currently require a cable box.

What do you think: Will Tru2way make for a better cable TV experience? Or will it be the latest consumer electronics scheme to overpromise and underdeliver?

Update (5/29/2008): Be sure to read the detailed comment below from reader MegaZone (who runs the Gizmolovers website). He offers some important corrections and expansions to my CableCard/Tru2way analysis.

(Credit: CableLabs)

Rather, NPD’s “Games Segmentation 2008″ report explained, extreme gamers put in an average of 45 hours a week playing games, and, even better–for the video game industry’s coffers–bought a whopping 24 titles in the last three months.

But when Electronic Arts’ Spore comes out next month, it will not be available on consoles. It will be primarily a PC game, though versions will be available for the Mac, for the DS, and for mobile phones.

Still, Frazier reported that PCs are still the single-most popular gaming medium.

What does it all mean? Well, it’s hard to tell exactly. But one thing that stands out is the idea that PC gaming is alive and well.

The NPD report identified seven different segments of gamers, including our extreme friends. The others include 9 percent who are “avid PC gamers,” 17 percent who are console gamers, 14 percent who are online PC gamers, 15 percent who are offline PC gamers, 22 percent who are “young heavy gamers” and 20 percent who are “secondary” gamers.

According to the report’s author, NPD analyst Anita Frazier, the largest group, the young heavy gamers, comprise a group 38 million strong. They tend to favor portable game machines like the Nintendo DS or the Sony PSP, while the extreme gamer spends most of his or her time plopped down in front of a Microsoft
Xbox 360 or
Sony PlayStation 3.

True, these committed gamers make up just 3 percent of the 174 million that NPD said play on PCs or Macs or dedicated video game machines. Still, that means 5.22 million people out there are putting in serious amounts of time gaming away. And if you stop and think about the dollars they’re spending, if they’re buying 24 games every three months, it’s kind of breathtaking.

All told, though, the report seems to spell out that the video games industry is relatively healthy, even if those extreme gamers may not be.

According to a report issued Monday morning by industry analyst firm, The NPD Group, the most active group of players, which it termed “extreme gamers,” devote more than a full-time job’s work week to their avocation. But they don’t get insurance benefits for their efforts.

I think we tend to forget that in the age of massive marketing budgets for machines like the Xbox, Wii, and PS3, and the incredible hype for games made for those consoles like Halo 3, Guitar Hero III, Grand Theft Auto IV and so on.

The report delved into cross-ownership, producing some interesting, if a little confusing, data.

For example, someone who has a PS3 is more likely to also own another next-generation console, like the Xbox 360 or
Nintendo Wii, than those who started with either of the latter machines. And, 45 percent of PSP owners also have a DS, while just 21 percent of DS owners have a PSP as well. I’m not great at math, but I think that means there are a lot more DS owners out there. Perhaps I’m wrong.

The video game industry had better thank its lucky stars that hard-core gamers do what they do.

One intriguing fact in the report is that fully 14 percent of games purchased overall were digital downloads. I would have thought that indicated a heavy degree of usage of services like Xbox Live, but the report indicates that 27 percent of that downloading activity–the largest share of any gaming medium–was done by PC gamers.

NPD said its report was based on a survey of 20,000 gamers.

In other words, it’s a bit like getting on a General Services Administration schedule in order to sell to the U.S. federal government. There are ways around it, but working with the GSA makes it so much easier.

How important is this selection? Very.

The UK’s procurement frameworks, a fast-track process for public sector purchasers, handled ?4.4bn of business in the year to April 2008. They are not meant to prevent companies not on the lists from selling to the public sector but, said (Mark) Taylor (CEO of Sirius), this had not been the experience of the Open Source community.

Open source has long been the ugly stepchild of UK government information technology, but in a recent turn of events, it may finally be gaining ground with the British.

“Schools would say, ‘we want this stuff, it doesn’t cost us anything and its really good’,” said Taylor. “The LA would say, ‘well the software’s not on the list, there isn’t a supplier who can supply it on the list, so you’re on your own with that.”

While kudos are in order for Novell UK and Sirius, the greater importance is the precedent it sets for open source, generally. If this helps to open up the UK to open source, what with its massive amounts of IT waste on proprietary technology and its traditional affection for Microsoft, then this is just a first step toward an open, successful future.

commentary

As The Inquirer reports, two open-source companies, Novell UK and Sirius, have been granted access to the UK’s ?80 million ($149 million) Software for Educational Institutions Framework, which enables them to supply software to the UK public sector. There may be additional open-source vendors chosen but the official list won’t be released until Wednesday, September 24.

This agreement gives advertisers a new opportunity to bid for placement on an additional network that includes Yahoo inventory. They will bid for what they think this opportunity is worth at prices that produce positive ROI. That’s how pricing works today in this industry and this agreement won’t change that.

So for now, we’re stuck in a he-said, she-said limbo, where the spinmeisters on both sides are slinging as much hash as possible. Despite their conflicting predictions of reality, the truth is that nobody will know whether this deal is pro- or anti-competitive until long after it goes into effect–assuming that Uncle Sam’s minions give it the green light.

Since the deal’s announcement, Microsoft and the advertising community have been making the case against the Yahoo-Google agreement. The Association of National Advertisers, which represents over 400 companies, last month issued a public letter maintaining the arrangement would raise prices and limit choice. Google and Yahoo obviously see things differently. Yahoo president Sue Decker then responded with a blog refutation of the argument put forth by the ANA and other critics:

To be continued.

The buzz around Washington is that the Justice Department will rule on whether to approve the Google-Yahoo advertising pact by late next week.

If the antitrust division decides not to oppose the agreement, the big question is whether it will attach conditions. One source involved with the opponents of the partnership said there’s not much chance the trustbusters will allow the deal to be implemented without modification. Of course, nobody outside of the Justice Department really knows the answer yet–and they ain’t talking. True to form, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment.

Of course, the government being the government, maybe it’ll do something supremely annoying and keep us in the dark beyond next Friday. But the calendar suggests that a decision is nigh. In June, when Google and Yahoo announced their accord, the companies voluntarily delayed implementing its terms for up to three and a half months to let the Justice Department review the deal.

Corporations and monetary systems, he said, are vestiges of the late Middle Ages when kings and aristocrats were struggling to exert some kind of authority over the fast-rising mercantile class and to rein in independent currencies before they became too powerful. “It was against the law to create value through one another. You had to do it through a corporation,” Rushkoff explained. “That was what corporations were for. Centralized currency came up because most towns in late Middle Ages Europe had their own currencies…they had so much extra money they built cathedrals.”

(Credit:
James Martin/CNET)

“Banks have resorted to a Ponzi scheme and now they’re dying,” he said. “They were so stupid they actually bought shares in their own Ponzi schemes.” That’s what gives the digerati their opportunity, Rushkoff explained. When PayPal debuted amid the last boom in Web innovation, its proverbial hands were tied behind its back because of the influence that banks could wield over a potential new threat that could change the industry. That might not be the case now.

Douglas Rushkoff at Web 2.0 Expo 2009

Still, Rushkoff’s talk was heavy on the theory and lighter on the substance. The financial crisis is dire, but a complete overhaul of the monetary system is unlikely. That’s why I wish Rushkoff had focused more on what the developers, entrepreneurs, and Web thinkers can learn in the short term, at a time when many of them are wondering what the heck to do about their lives and careers.

He offered an anecdote about how he was mugged outside his Brooklyn apartment last year and posted to a neighborhood message board about it only to learn that his neighbors were more concerned about what it might to do to property values rather than how they could fix things and help make the neighborhood safer.

(Tip: if you want to make something sound really awful and backwards, talk about how it has roots in kings and feudalism.)

But if he’d said too much more, I guess, nobody in the audience would buy his book.

SAN FRANCISCO–A conference about Silicon Valley innovation invariably will feature at least one talk about how the old order of American business is hopelessly broken and needs a tech-savvy recharge. At this year’s Web 2.0 Expo here, it was author Douglas Rushkoff’s “How the Web Ate The Economy, And Why This Is Good For Everyone.”

That system is still in place, he said, and it’s about time it breathed its last. Corporations are run by CEOs who were hired because of their experience in being “corporate” rather than expertise in the industry in question. “Transparency” is a ubiquitous buzzword, but Rushkoff said that it’s impossible when so many companies rely on so much outsourcing and contracting that it’s unclear as to what the company itself actually is.

It was a tantalizing title. But most of Rushkoff’s talk wasn’t about the Web or how it can help steer the world out of a global financial crisis. He focused instead on how the idea of “currency” as we know it, not to mention the notion of the “corporation,” is profoundly archaic and that with the market meltdown, we have a golden opportunity to get rid of them altogether.

He offered one tip that I wish he’d expanded upon: suggesting that cashing out a start-up, many a Web 2.0 entrepreneur’s dream, is actually the worst thing you can do. Rushkoff said that the aim should be to “make a living rather than cash out…Once you sell, you are working for the bank.” Now that’s interesting. Silicon Valley’s elite like to think they’re at the forefront of business, and yet so many of them are buying (literally) right into the old order, if Rushkoff is to be believed.

“We can make pretty much everything great,” said Rushkoff, whose book “Life Inc.” is coming out in early June, “and if we don’t, they will recover and make us miserable for another few centuries.”

Throughout the talk he shared insights about the power of helping others and always going after your dreams even when you’re faced with obstacles. A graduate of Brown University and Carnegie Mellon’s computer science Ph.D. program, he confessed that he had not originally been admitted to either school. But unwilling to accept these roadblocks, he managed to get in anyway.

I first heard about Randy Pausch last year when my older sister forwarded me The Wall Street Journal column written by Zaslow, who had attended Pausch’s last lecture. We had lost our mother to pancreatic cancer almost exactly five years earlier, so Pausch’s story hit particularly close to home for me and my sisters. As I read about Pausch’s lecture, my heart immediately went out to him and his young family as I envisioned the struggle they faced.

Pausch is survived by his wife, Jai, and three young children: Chloe, Dylan and Logan.

With the help of Wall Street Journal columnist Jeff Zaslow, Pausch turned his words of wisdom into a best-selling book, which was published this spring.

Pausch’s family has requested that donations on his behalf be made to the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, 2141 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 7000, El Segundo, CA 90245, or to Carnegie Mellon’s Randy Pausch Memorial Fund.

Unlike my mother’s battle with pancreatic cancer, Pausch’s journey lasted nearly two years. This is incredible given the fact that only 20 percent of all people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer make it through the first year, according to the American Cancer Society. And only about 4 percent live five years post-diagnosis. My mother, who was diagnosed a week before my younger sister’s college graduation in May 2002, died about three and a half months after her diagnosis.

I can attest to the fact that it sucks to lose a parent at any age. But I was 29-years-old when my mother died. I have many wonderful memories of her that I replay in my mind almost daily. Unfortunately, Pausch’s children will most likely not have any memories of their own of their dad. And that is tragic. While there could never be any replacement for the time they have lost with him, I hope the enduring legacy of his lecture and the book that followed will provide some comfort to his children as they grow up.

In his lecture titled “Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams,” Pausch humorously recounted his efforts to achieve his childhood dreams, such as becoming a professional football player, experiencing zero gravity, and working with the Walt Disney Company’s Imagineering department to develop virtual reality rides for the amusement park.

(Credit:
Randy Pausch)

I am glad for Pausch and his family that they were given as much time as possible. But I am still saddened at the loss of such an incredible and inspiring man. And I am saddened even more that his children will grow up without him in their lives.

While no one would ever doubt my mother’s own passion for life, she was definitely in a different phase of her life than Randy Pausch. And thus, she decided to forgo palliative chemotherapy and let her illness take its natural course. She had beaten breast cancer nearly 15 years earlier at the age of 45 and was thankful to fulfill her greatest wish of seeing her youngest child graduate from college. (I joked with her when she was given her terminal diagnosis that she should have aimed for a higher goal, such as the marriage of her middle daughter. I’m 35 and still single.)

Pausch went on to become an award-winning professor and helped pioneer virtual reality research. He was a key member of Carnegie Mellon’s Human-Computer Interaction Institute and co-founder of the Entertainment Technology Center, a master’s degree program that brings artists and engineers together. He also helped create Alice, an interactive program that helps teach young people computer programming.

Pausch was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in September 2006. And his popular “last lecture” at Carnegie Mellon in September 2007 became an Internet sensation, viewed by millions throughout the world. The lecture was part of an ongoing series at many universities that asked professors to think deeply about important life lessons.

Pausch playing with his three young children.

(Credit:
Randy Pausch)

But Pausch, whose oldest child is only 6-years-old now, clearly had strong incentives to endure recovery from the painful surgery to remove tumors from the pancreas and grueling months of chemotherapy.

He clicked through photos of himself as a boy, one of which showed him at the beach in my hometown of Rehoboth Beach, Del. in 1965. He also shared pictures of his own PET scans depicting several large tumors devouring his organs. And there were pictures of past students, co-workers, and bosses who played major roles in his life.

Randy Pausch, the Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor who inspired millions through his “last lecture”, died at his home in Virginia on Friday of complications from pancreatic cancer. He was 47.

FTL Solar has very sparse information available on its Web site and didn’t respond to a request for more information. But in a press release, it said that its cells will be aimed at both military and commercial clients.

Prometheus Institute President Travis Bradford at a Greentech Media solar event last week forecast that thin-film cells will jump in production from 1 gigawatt this year to 9 gigawatts in 2012.

“Our defense and corporate clients can adapt our power generating units to almost every task, from small installations which can power residential needs, charge laptops, cell phones, power water purification and sanitation systems, to large-scale megawatt-generating solar farms,” said Tony Saxton, CEO of FTL, in a statement.

The company said that Terra Firma Capital Group, the Josh Mailman Foundation, and individual investors completed the first phase of a planned $50 million funding it expects to finish by the end of the year. It was also awarded a $200,000 matching grant from the New York State Energy Research Development Authority.

FTL Solar on Wednesday announced it has raised capital to make flexible solar cells for buildings that generate electricity.

But because these thin-film cells are flexible, they can be used for building-integrated photovoltaics, where roofing material, siding, or architectural glass can generate electricity.

(Credit:
FTL Solar)

Flexible solar cells used to build power-generating buildings.

Flexible solar cells are commercially competitive with traditional silicon cells on price. So far, companies like First Solar, Nanosolar, and Heliovolt are planning on first making cells for flat solar panels.

The company envisions that its structures, called PowerMods, can be used as battery-charging stations, parking lot canopies, disaster relief shelters, remote medical stations, and for military bases.

Scrabble’s manufacturers weren’t thrilled, and they served a handful of takedown notices. But months later, Scrabulous is still alive and kicking, and the millions of Facebook users who have been playing it are unlikely to make the switch–who says they’ll even notice the presence of the new game?

A game of Scrabulous on Facebook.

But EA’s official version might gain traction elsewhere. The company will also be launching a version of the game on Pogo, an EA-owned casual-game site. If that’s the start of a distribution effort across other game hubs, the “real” Scrabble could get some attention.

Unlike the last time we saw an announcement like this, it actually extends to the United States. (Remember, rights to Scrabble are owned by different companies in the U.S. and abroad–here, it’s Hasbro, there, it’s Mattel.)

“Scrabble is one of the best social-game brands in existence, and we’ve worked diligently with the Hasbro team to ensure that regardless of the platform you’re playing, you’ll be able to enjoy a world-class version of Scrabble with friends or family,” Chip Lange, general manager of EA Hasbro Games, said in a release Monday. “We’re delighted to be bringing communities everywhere access to one of their favorite games.”

Electronic Arts, the video game giant that owns the rights to digital versions of the board game Scrabble, has announced that later this month, it will launch a Facebook application version of the game in conjunction with Hasbro.

The “official” Scrabble application, licensed by Mattel for Facebook users outside the States, has fewer than 4,000 daily users on a social network of more than 80 million, and Scrabulous is about 100 times more popular.

Unfortunately for EA and Hasbro, the story is much more complicated than that.

(Credit:
Scrabulous)

There was, famously, all that fallout early this year over Scrabulous, a Facebook application that bears a suspicious resemblance to Scrabble. It’s ad-supported, which means that the India-based brothers who created it are making money off the game. And perhaps because there was no “real” Scrabble on the social network, Scrabulous became wildly popular.

On Facebook, though, unless Hasbro reignites its dormant legal efforts to remove Scrabulous from the system, the game probably doesn’t stand much of a chance.

(Credit:
New Energy Finance)

Regardless of the outcome, U.S. citizens can expect energy and environment to be a center-stage issue during the fall presidential campaign, although paying for any policies once in office will be a challenge.

After examining voting records and public statements, research firm New Energy Finance concluded that there are significant differences between the energy stances of Democratic candidate Obama and Republican candidate McCain.

New Energy Finance CEO Michael Liebreich summarized their policies this way:

In sharp contrast to McCain, Obama’s voting record has been solidly behind the renewable energy industry. A Senate effort last year to extend an investment tax credit around solar and wind energy projects failed to pass by one vote; McCain did not vote.

“The fiscally conservative, small government-minded McCain has long eschewed subsidies, earmarks, and heavy regulation, and his energy policy is no exception,” according to the report. “By contrast, liberal Obama prefers to have the federal government take a more direct role in the U.S. energy sector.”

McCain is opposed to existing federal government ethanol production targets and has said that he would eliminate a tariff on Brazilian ethanol, a move which would expose U.S. producers to more competition.

Meanwhile, Obama has garnered the support of a number of clean-tech investors because of his policies; high-profile clean energy venture capitalist Nancy Floyd spoke at the Democratic National Convention and endorsed Obama.

A McCain White House would favor free-market economics and rein in the role of federal government policy on energy. Obama, meanwhile, would seek a more active role for government in promoting the clean energy industry.

Obama has voted for the investment tax credit, set to lapse at the end of this year, and favors a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which would mandate that utilities generate 25 percent clean energy by 2025.

Where both candidates align is on the question of regulating greenhouse gas emissions, with both advocating a cap-and-trade system although different methods for auctioning off polluting rights.

He also advocates expanded domestic oil drilling and a massive increase in nuclear power plant construction, with the goal of building 45 new reactors by 2030.

Both have proposed expanded research into so-called clean coal technology for storing carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants underground. And both favor tax breaks for fuel-efficient
cars.

New Energy Finance applauds various aspects of both candidates policies but argues that McCain’s is “incorrect” in believing that the clean energy industry is mature enough to thrive with relatively little government assistance.

Obama supports the continued ethanol mandate and has called for more aggressive fuel-efficiency standards. Obama has not ruled out further expansion of nuclear power but his support is pending new technology development for storage of nuclear wastes, according to New Energy Finance.

“We expect either a President Obama or a President McCain to pursue more vigorous policies on clean energy and emission reductions than President Bush has done for the last eight years. Obama is arguably being more imaginative, but he is also taking more of a centrally planned approach. McCain’s regional approach, and in particular his insistence on tariff reductions, has much to recommend it. But neither candidate has yet put forward a fully comprehensive plan, and we are hoping to see them developing their policies more completely–particularly towards the encouragement of renewable power generation and energy efficiency–during the final few weeks of the campaign.”

A summary of the presidential candidates’ energy policies, with Barack Obama favoring support of the clean energy industry and John McCain calling for less government assistance. Click to enlarge.

The two presidential candidates’ energy policies fall along philosophical lines, with Sen. John McCain calling to scale back government ethanol policy and Sen. Barack Obama promising expanded support for renewable energy, according to an analysis published Wednesday.