All posts by media-man

AI search engines fail to produce accurate citations in over 60% of tests, according to new Tow Center study

Over the past year, AI chatbots have been widely criticized for how poorly they cite news publishers, and how little traffic they drive to the publishers they do cite properly.

ChatGPT has often been at the center of this conversation. Last summer, I reported that ChatGPT frequently hallucinated fake URLs to news sites, even to articles from OpenAI’s own publishing partners. Research has continued to show that these citation issues are not limited to ChatGPT, but are in fact chronic across the AI industry.

On March 6, Klaudia Jaźwińska and Aisvarya Chandrasekar, researchers at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, added new hard numbers to this conversation, and they’re pretty damning. For their study “AI search has a citation problem,” they conducted 200 tests on eight different AI search engines: ChatGPT Search, Perplexity, Perplexity Pro, Gemini, DeepSeek Search, Grok-2 Search, Grok-3 Search, and Copilot.
Each test query provided the search engine with a quote from an article, then prompted the chatbot to respond with the article title, date of publication, publication name, and a URL. Across the 1600 test queries, the search engines failed to retrieve the correct information more than 60% of the time.

Perplexity, which brands itself as a tool for research, had the lowest failure rate, answering incorrectly 37% of the time. Meanwhile, Grok-3 Search had the highest failure rate at 94%. The chatbot, which is available to X Premium+ subscribers, until recently cost $40 per month. Still, it managed to score even worse than Grok-2, the free version of the same tool, in their tests.

Another problem outlined by Jaźwińska and Chandrasekar is how confidently these search engines are wrong. While some chatbots are built to acknowledge when they don’t know an answer, many of the most popular AI search engines on the market lean towards blind confidence in their response language. This can make it even more difficult for users to determine when they should be skeptical of a response’s accuracy.

Across the 134 incorrect citations given by ChatGPT in their tests, for example, the chatbot only used hedging language in 15 of those responses. Copilot was the one exception, since it declined to answer a majority of the questions it was asked.

Broken URLs were also persistent in Jaźwińska and Chandrasekar’s tests, though the issue varied greatly from search engine to search engine. Gemini and Grok 3 were the worst offenders, as the only two chatbots that provided more fabricated links than correct links across the 200 tests. Grok 3, for example, pointed users to 404 error pages 154 times.

The Tow Center report comes just as increased attention is being paid to the failure of AI search engines to actually drive traffic to news publishers. A recent study by TollBit, a startup selling digital publishers tools to monetize scraping by AI companies, found that “chatbots on average drive referral traffic at a rate that is 96% lower than traditional Google search.”

Last week, Generative AI in the Newsroom, a project from Northwestern University, published the first in a series of articles analyzing Comscore data from AI chatbots. In its first analysis of ChatGPT and Perplexity data, which covered five months in 2024, sites in the news publisher category only received 3.2% of ChatGPT’s filtered traffic and 7.4% of Perplexity’s filtered traffic.

AI search’s citations problem is one more reason to be skeptical of AI search as a burgeoning source of referral traffic. Unless AI companies are first able to ensure their search engines are producing consistently accurate citations of news publishers’ stories, there is little reason to believe these search engines will be viable referrers, or a comparable replacement to traditional search.

You can read the full study, “AI search has a citation problem,” at Columbia Journalism Review.

GOP Senators Trade Constitutional Authority For Elon’s Phone Number

Republican Senators are so aware that Elon Musk is literally running the government now that they’re getting his personal cell phone number to beg him to reverse his mistakes. This would be concerning enough on its own — but it’s especially alarming given that just weeks ago, the DOJ explicitly claimed in court that Musk has no authority whatsoever over DOGE or government decisions.

The stark contradiction between what’s happening and what the DOJ claimed came into sharp focus last week when the Washington Post reported that Republican Senators were literally getting Musk’s personal phone number to call him when they need his DOGE team to “get problematic cuts reversed quickly.”

Yes, this is how our government now works. Musk’s wrecking crew destroys stuff, and a select few Republican officials get to call him and plead with him to try to put broken things back together again, even as many of them are not easily restored.

This makes the DOJ’s recent court filings look particularly absurd. Just weeks ago, the DOJ filed an obviously laughably false thing in court claiming that Elon Musk had nothing to do with DOGE. Then, a week later, the White House suddenly claimed that someone named Amy Gleason was actually running DOGE, even though there were reports that many people working for DOGE had no idea that Gleason was their boss.

Everyone knew the Gleason thing was nonsense, and nobody (outside of the DOJ in court filings) even seems to want to pretend that Elon isn’t the one really running the show. Last week, at his address to Congress, Donald Trump said (notably, in front of about half of the Supreme Court Justices) that Elon was running DOGE, which is in direct contradiction to what Trump’s DOJ swore in court.

In court, the DOJ said:

The U.S. DOGE Service is a component of the Executive Office of the President. The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization is within the U.S. DOGE Service. Both are separate from the White House Office. Mr. Musk is an employee in the White House Office. He is not an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service or U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. Mr. Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service Administrator.

But then, at the address to Congress, Trump basically admitted the DOJ lied to the court.

I have created the brand-new Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Perhaps. Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight.

Lawyers immediately alerted the court to this blatant contradiction, with lawyer Kel McClanahan leading the way, filing this fun “Notice of New Evidence.”

In support of their Motion for Expedited Discovery, Dkt. #20, Plaintiffs Jerald Lentini, Joshua Erlich, and National Security Counselors, Inc. hereby submit new evidence which conclusively demonstrates that expedited discovery is urgently needed to ascertain the nature of the Department of Government Efficiency and its relationship to the United States DOGE Service, of which Amy Gleason is the Acting Administrator. At approximately 9:46 PM, President Trump stated the following in his Joint Address to Congress:

To further combat inflation, we will not only be reducing the cost of energy, but will be ending the flagrant waste of taxpayer dollars. And to that end, I have created the brand new Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Perhaps. Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight.

Live: Donald Trump delivers speech to Congress, Assoc. Press (Mar. 4, 2025), at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEygBVr1neI

When the President directly contradicts his own DOJ’s court filing on national television, it’s more than just embarrassing – it’s a sign of how completely the constitutional structure of our government has broken down. The DOJ is supposed to represent the executive branch’s legal positions truthfully to the courts. Instead, we have the department filing demonstrably false statements while the President openly admits the truth.

In any other administration, this would be a massive, ongoing, frontpage crisis. With Trump, it’s yet another story that is covered for a day and forgotten.

Either way, the story is only getting dumber. The Washington Post explains exactly how Republican Senators are so aware that Elon Musk is literally running the government now that this is happening:

Musk told a group of Republican senators in a closed-door lunch that he wanted to set up a direct line for them when they have questions about DOGE, allowing them to get a near-instant response to their questions and concerns about his group, senators said.

Some senators were given Musk’s phone number, and the entrepreneur said he would “create a system where members of Congress can call some central group” to get problematic cuts reversed quickly, said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina).

This is crazy on multiple levels. First, the Constitution explicitly gives Congress, not an unelected tech billionaire, the power over government spending and agency oversight. Having senators beg Musk to reverse his decisions doesn’t just invert the Constitution, it makes a mockery of it.

Second, if Musk is making so many mistakes that they need to have his number to call in case of emergencies, that suggests he shouldn’t be in this job. The fact that senators are treating this as normal — setting up an emergency hotline to an advisor with literally no authority to do anything, rather than exercising their own authority — shows just how far we’ve strayed from basic principles of democratic governance.

It shows that literally all of them know he has no clue what he’s doing. If you want to cut, there are ways to make cuts that don’t involve having to rapidly roll back your cuts (and we’ve already seen that not only is Musk making massive, catastrophic, unfixable mistakes, but also when he claims they’re reversing those mistakes, that’s not actually happening in some cases).

And, again, in that very same DOJ court filing where the court was told Musk has no role with DOGE, it also said he has no authority to make decisions and can only advise:

In his role as a Senior Advisor to the President, Mr. Musk has no greater authority than other senior White House advisors. Like other senior White House advisors, Mr. Musk has no actual or formal authority to make government decisions himself. Mr. Musk can only advise the President and communicate the President’s directives.

If he’s not running DOGE and has no authority… then why would Senators need to call Musk directly to get things fixed?

So this latest news makes it clear that literally everyone in the government knows that, contrary to what the DOJ claimed in court, Musk is running DOGE and has free control over nearly every aspect of the federal government. Of course, that just confirms that what Musk is doing violates the Appointments Clause (among many other things).

And, really, Republican elected officials need to find whatever spine they have and remind everyone what Congress’s role is, because this is one of the most pathetic statements ever by an elected official:

“With all due respect to Mr. Musk, he doesn’t have a vote up here. … [Give] courtesy to the members. They’re the ones that have to go home and defend these decisions, not you. So why don’t you give them a heads-up,” said Rep. Tom Cole (Oklahoma). “You are certainly complicating the lives of individual members, and you might be making some mistakes and hurting some innocent individuals in the process.”

Think about what Cole is actually saying here: A member of Congress — a co-equal branch of government with explicit constitutional authority over spending — is reduced to begging an unelected billionaire for the courtesy of advance notice before he dismantles government agencies and terminates federal employees. This isn’t just a problem — it’s a blaring constitutional crisis.

But it’s a solvable one if Congress just does its job.

The complete abdication of responsibility by Republican elected officials is particularly striking. These are legislators who routinely trumpet their constitutional authority and rail against unelected bureaucrats. Yet when faced with an unelected billionaire dismantling government agencies, they’re reduced to begging for advance notice of his decisions.

Consider Senator Boozman’s remarkably tepid response:

“I know he wants to make the government more efficient, but I do think we want to be informed as to what’s going on so when we’re asked about it we’re able to think about it and understand why and explain what the purpose is,” said Sen. John Boozman (Arkansas), who had never met Musk before the lunch.

This from a man who has spent a quarter century in Congress, over half of that in the Senate. Boozman knows — or should know — that Congress, not some big donor tech executive, has constitutional authority over government spending. His meek acceptance of Musk’s authority, asking only to be “informed” about decisions he should be making, represents a stunning surrender of congressional power.

And just the idea that any of this is made any better by Musk giving his mobile phone number to officials is bizarre. Beyond the constitutional absurdity, there are serious security implications. Is this Musk’s personal mobile phone? Is it a government phone? Is it secure? Is it compromised?

But, just take a step back here and put this in perspective. Even if you think that DOGE is actually uncovering some amazing waste, fraud, and abuse (it’s not) and that Musk is magically saving many billions in wasted taxpayer funds (he’s not), no system of government should work this way:

  1. Install a President deeply indebted to the world’s richest man
  2. Hand effective control of the entirety of the federal government to that same billionaire, who brings in inexperienced dipshit loyalists with sweeping access to sensitive data and unchecked power to dismantle federal programs
  3. Watch as Congress voluntarily surrenders its constitutional oversight role
  4. When the inevitable disasters occur, have elected Republicans (and, it appears, only Republicans) reduced to begging for the personal phone number of an advisor who the government swears has no authority, so they can plead for mercy and a reversal of decisions (only some of which are actually reversible).

It’s so stupid that if you wrote this up as a satirical Hollywood script, people would say it’s just too far out there. And yet, it’s the world we’re living in.

Speaking of “government-by-calling-Elon,” another report from last week involved an apparently hastily called cabinet meeting by Trump, after various (actually Senate approved) cabinet members were getting mad at Musk. And, once again, the answer seemed to be “hey, if you don’t like what I’m doing, call me.”

Mr. Duffy said the young staff of Mr. Musk’s team was trying to lay off air traffic controllers. What am I supposed to do? Mr. Duffy said. I have multiple plane crashes to deal with now, and your people want me to fire air traffic controllers?

Mr. Musk told Mr. Duffy that his assertion was a “lie.” Mr. Duffy insisted it was not; he had heard it from them directly. Mr. Musk, asking who had been fired, said: Give me their names. Tell me their names.

Mr. Duffy said there were not any names, because he had stopped them from being fired. At another point, Mr. Musk insisted that people hired under diversity, equity and inclusion programs were working in control towers. Mr. Duffy pushed back and Mr. Musk did not add details, but said during the longer back and forth that Mr. Duffy had his phone number and should call him if he had any issues to raise.

That’s right: When confronted with evidence that his team was trying to fire air traffic controllers during an aviation crisis, Musk’s response was essentially “just call me if there’s a problem.” This is how major policy decisions about aviation safety are now being made apparently — through casual phone calls to a tech billionaire with no official authority.

Seems like a problem?

The one thing about that meeting, though, is it shows that at least some of the cabinet is getting fed up with Musk. Indeed, the even larger story was that Musk and Rubio also clashed after Musk (again, with no authority) demanded Rubio fire a ton of people:

Seated diagonally opposite, across the elliptical mahogany table, Elon Musk was letting Mr. Rubio have it, accusing him of failing to slash his staff.

You have fired “nobody,” Mr. Musk told Mr. Rubio, then scornfully added that perhaps the only person he had fired was a staff member from Mr. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

Mr. Rubio had been privately furious with Mr. Musk for weeks, ever since his team effectively shuttered an entire agency that was supposedly under Mr. Rubio’s control: the United States Agency for International Development. But, in the extraordinary cabinet meeting on Thursday in front of President Trump and around 20 others — details of which have not been reported before — Mr. Rubio got his grievances off his chest.

To be fair, some reports suggest that Trump eventually told Musk to back off, saying cabinet members should have the authority here. But given Trump’s track record of occasionally saying the one thing to appease whoever is in front of him, before immediately reverting to whatever his biggest donor wants, it’s probably best not to get too excited about this particular moment of possible slight pushback on Musk.

The truth here is inescapable: we’ve allowed our constitutional system of checks and balances to be replaced by government-by-group-chat, where an unelected billionaire with no official authority wreaks havoc while elected officials desperately try to get him on the phone. The Republicans in Congress and the cabinet have both the constitutional authority and duty to stop this. Instead, they’re competing to get on Musk’s speed dial while he dismantles the institutions they swore to protect.

And that’s the real problem: It’s not just that Musk is overstepping — it’s that our constitutional officers are letting him. They have the power to stop this. They’re just choosing not to use it. Maybe someone should give them a call about that.

What the world needs now is more fossil fuels, says Trump’s energy secretary

Chris Wright signals abandonment of Biden’s ‘irrational, quasi-religious’ climate policies at industry conference

The world needs more planet-heating fossil fuel, not less, Donald Trump’s newly appointed energy secretary, Chris Wright, told oil and gas bigwigs on Monday.

“We are unabashedly pursuing a policy of more American energy production and infrastructure, not less,” he said in the opening plenary talk of CERAWeek, a swanky annual conference in Houston, Texas, led by the financial firm S&P Global.

Continue reading...

Deploying Plug & Charge technology can speed EV adoption

Deploying Plug & Charge technology can speed EV adoption MIT Center for… Mon, 03/10/2025 - 12:15 MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy ResearchTopicsCities & PlanningGovernment & PolicyTransportationCarsPostMarch 10, 2025

Deploying Plug & Charge technology can speed EV adoption

Accelerating deployment of new Plug & Charge technology will speed EV adoption and more rapidly expand the EV market. 

 

Charging is a documented pain point holding back EV sales. Plug & Charge makes initiating a charging session even easier than buying gasoline–simply plug the charging cord into the vehicle and charging begins. Plug & Charge also increases the reliability of public charging: It raises the odds of a successful charge, speeds the process, and reduces driver frustration around both unsuccessful charge attempts and the need for multiple charging provider apps. An automatic payment is built into the system.

 

Based on input from a diverse group of DC fast charging stakeholders, MIT CEEPR and the Salata Institute at Harvard developed this set of recommendations to accelerate deployment of Plug & Charge at EV charging stations.

 

Read more here: https://ceepr.link/3FsYwLX

ClimeFi Launches Analyst Ratings For Carbon Dioxide Removals

The carbon dioxide removal (CDR) market is evolving from a niche concept into an important climate strategy tool for hard to abate emissions. However, as the market matures, the need for sophisticated mechanisms to guide participants has become increasingly evident. Addressing this challenge, ClimeFi has launched its Analyst Rating —  ... [continued]

The post ClimeFi Launches Analyst Ratings For Carbon Dioxide Removals appeared first on CleanTechnica.

Prairie Public supporters urge North Dakota Senate to restore state funding

“The national programming will continue, but what [news director] Dave Thompson does, what we do for the local community with our educational team going out and providing professional development, those are the things that will go away,” said Prairie Public CEO John Harris.

The post Prairie Public supporters urge North Dakota Senate to restore state funding appeared first on Current.

Items

When I was a kid, my favorite sports teams were the Brooklyn Dodgers, the New York Knicks, and the New York (football) Giants, in roughly that order. But the Dodgers were on top, by a long way. I became a Mets fan (as did all New York non-Yankees fans) when they showed up in 1961. My favorite radio team—back when such loyalties were a Real Thing—was the WMCA Good Guys. I tell a story about that on my old blog, here.

No time to look for today's collision (between a tanker and a container ship) in the North Sea, but maybe you can find it at MarineTraffic: an amazing map and service.

Are we being colonized, for our personal data? This paper makes the case.

My most-visited blog post of the last couple of weeks is Radio's Death Knells. I have a feeling those visits are more from people in the business than from people who listen to radio.

Sad but interesting to see how many listings on my old blogroll (frozen in Augst 2007) are from people now gone: Rex Hammock, Craig Burton, Chris Locke, Ronni Barrett, Bernie DeKoven, Kim Cameron, John Perry Barlow, The Head Lemur. And those are just some I know. I'll fill in the links later when I have time (which I won't, but I'll make some).

An argument for mixed-reality glasses. Note that the best smart glasses I know about are ones thought up more than eleven years ago.

The next portable personal device is one thought up almost twelve years ago. Its name was (and might yet still be) Omie. (I currently squat on omie.fun and omie.my. Just in case.)

My current defaulted writing method for this blog is to write all day in Wordland, then when adding an image to the top of the post after I've moved on to another post. (And maybe to do some additional editing, like I do with most of my posts using WordPress' own composing window—or whatever it's called.)

Navigating ethical implications

Editor’s Note: The American Press Institute continues to build on our influencer partnership work. Last week, we shared a detailed step-by-step process to navigate influencer collaborations. We are also excited to share that API will fund and facilitate a second influencer learning cohort. Up to 12 participating newsrooms will receive grants to conduct an influencer collaboration experiment and participate in learning calls in May and July 2025. Applications will be open March 24-31; we’ll share more details in a future installment of this newsletter, so stay tuned.

 

As you’ve started to explore what it might look like to collaborate with an influencer in your community to promote, translate or add nuance to your outlet’s work, you’ve probably discussed questions and concerns with others in your newsroom. Some ethical questions may arise, such as, how do you know this information is fair and accurate? How might it impact people’s perception of the independence of your news organization?

It’s important to address these not only within your organization to get buy-in but with the public as well. When experimenting with new types of content — especially from creators or digital messengers — transparency is crucial.

Exploring these ethical questions will not only help you have more confidence in your collaboration and promote transparency with your community but will provide guideposts to choosing the right people to work with. It will also help you outline expectations and responsibilities for both the influencer and the news team working with them.   

Below are questions and a checklist to help you anticipate and prepare for any potentially sticky ethical situations arising from partnering with trusted messengers.

Exploring the ethics of an influencer collaboration

During your newsroom listening session, you may have encountered questions about how such a partnership will work within the editorial ethics built into your core newsroom operations. Make a list of those and as a team, answer some of the questions below to help determine what an influencer collaboration should look like for your organization and what issues you need to be transparent about with readers and colleagues alike.

  • Does the influencer or messenger align with your organization’s values, goals and purpose?
  • What questions might arise about your newsroom’s fairness or perspective if connected with this person? What assumptions might people make?
  • If content from this collaboration is shared through a specific lens or perspective, are you comfortable with it being separate from but complementary to your own work? Will your audience be?
  • How will you fact-check and make sure what is being shared is accurate? Can you agree to a joint commitment to accuracy and sharing of sources and source material?
  • Are you open to the output of the collaboration looking different from your usual journalism? If so, are you communicating that to your staff and discussing any concerns?

Once you can answer those questions and decide how you plan to move forward with an influencer collaboration, follow this checklist to help build trust through transparency.

Disclose the relationship and why you’re investing in the partnership

Share the scope of the project

Talk about who is financially backing the work if applicable

Explain how the content is fact-checked

Clarify the editing process

Address potential conflicts of interest

Highlight your organization’s ethics

You can find more questions, prompts and sample disclosures in this article written by Trusting News’ Mollie Muchna.

What others are doing

Members of the 2024 cohort navigated these ethical questions in real time as they built out partnerships with trusted messengers. As reflected in a madlib-style exercise from the cohort’s retrospective, several lessons learned point to the importance of ethical guardrails before any contract is signed:

When it comes to influencers, if I knew then that as long as our organization gave pretty clear boundaries on what our newsroom values are, I wouldn’t have worried so much on the influencer following them.

When it comes to influencers, if I knew then how important it was for the influencer to align with the purpose of your organization, I’d have conducted a more tailored search for the right influencer.

“Influencer partnerships go beyond transactional arrangements; they thrive on genuine alignment of values and goals,” Olivia Rivarola with Factchequeado wrote in a learning memo. “Take the time to build relationships with influencers who truly share your mission and are passionate about the issues you are addressing. This ensures that the partnership feels authentic both to the influencer and their audience, and it can result in more meaningful and impactful content.”

Dig deeper

A lot is being written right now about influencers — whether they’re called creators, news influencers, trusted messengers or something else. Here are some reports and breakdowns you may find helpful as you consider what ethical issues your newsroom needs to consider.

Mollie Muchna contributed to this newsletter installment.

The post Navigating ethical implications appeared first on American Press Institute.

EVs Take 27.3% Share In Germany — Volkswagen ID.7 Still Leading

February saw plugin EVs take 27.3% share in Germany, up from 19.3% share year on year. BEVs were back to decent volume compared to 2024, though only modestly ahead of February 2023 figures. PHEVs have stepped up modestly. Overall auto volume was 203,434 units, down some 6% YoY. The best-selling ... [continued]

The post EVs Take 27.3% Share In Germany — Volkswagen ID.7 Still Leading appeared first on CleanTechnica.

Trump’s USAid cuts will have huge impact on global climate finance, data shows

Campaigners say funding halt is a ‘staggering blow’ to vulnerable nations and to efforts to keep heating below 1.5C

Donald Trump’s withdrawal of US overseas aid will almost decimate global climate finance from the developed world, data shows, with potentially devastating impacts on vulnerable nations.

The US was responsible last year for about $8 in every $100 that flowed from the rich world to developing countries, to help them cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of extreme weather, according to data from the analyst organisation Carbon Brief.

Continue reading...

Ridiculous DOGE Policies Threaten An End To US Research Efforts In Antarctica

By now, most people have seen the video of a drug crazed serial philanderer carpetbagger from South Africa wielding a giant chainsaw at a recent CPAC conference, an obvious reference to what he and his stooges at DOGE plan to do to the federal government, having been given carte blanche ... [continued]

The post Ridiculous DOGE Policies Threaten An End To US Research Efforts In Antarctica appeared first on CleanTechnica.

Debunking the Myth: Hydrogen’s Abundance Does Not Equal Accessibility

Saying hydrogen is abundant is like saying gold is easy to get—it’s out there, but extracting it is hard, expensive, and energy-intensive. The problem isn’t scarcity; the problem is accessibility. Hydrogen advocates often parrot the line that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, implying that it’s naturally ... [continued]

The post Debunking the Myth: Hydrogen’s Abundance Does Not Equal Accessibility appeared first on CleanTechnica.

Fighting for Breath: Wildfire Smoke, Climate Change, & the Urgency of Adaptation

Wildfire season is arriving earlier, lasting longer, and burning more intensely than ever before. Communities that once thought of wildfires as rare, late-summer events now find themselves choking on smoke as early as spring. Per FireSmoke.ca there are over 200 wildfires burning in North America already, and it’s the beginning ... [continued]

The post Fighting for Breath: Wildfire Smoke, Climate Change, & the Urgency of Adaptation appeared first on CleanTechnica.

How To Flip Marketing That Promotes A False “Future Of Energy” Vision

To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, emissions need to be reduced by almost half by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2050. The future of energy must focus on renewables. A clean energy transition is powerful and necessary to stabilize the planet, and strong leadership to promote ... [continued]

The post How To Flip Marketing That Promotes A False “Future Of Energy” Vision appeared first on CleanTechnica.