When I was growing up, my mother always said there were three questions to never ask: how much money a person makes, a woman’s age, and who someone is voting for. With an important presidential election nearby, though, I’d like to discuss that third topic. (Sorry, mom.)

It’s obvious almost everyone is passionate about this impending election and has a strong opinion about the two main candidates. Some voters call one presidential hopeful crooked, while some others consider the second candidate a bigot. But let’s forget about the emails and border walls for a moment and focus on a key issue for the solar industry - energy policy.

What might a Clinton or Trump presidency mean for the future of U.S. renewables? Although Trump’s official website doesn’t offer as many specifics as his opponent’s does, both candidates’ sites - and a host of press articles - provide a glimpse into where the politicians stand on clean energy.

According to Clinton’s site, she vows to “defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan.” As the first-ever emissions regulations on existing U.S. power plants, the CPP is poised to create a boom in clean energy. Meanwhile, Trump’s site says he will “rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions, including the Climate Action Plan,” which, of course, helped create the CPP.

Clinton also pledges to follow through with the Paris Agreement, the historic deal setting a global goal to combat climate change. Trump’s site says he will cancel the agreement “and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.” However, his stance on climate change is no surprise, given that he has a long history of calling it a “hoax” on his infamous Twitter account. In 2012, Trump even tweeted, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” In an interview this year, he claimed that was a joke, but in 2014, Trump also tweeted that the idea of global warming is bull excrement that “has got to stop.” (FYI: He used a less-PC word for “excrement.”)

Clinton has set a goal to “generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half-a-billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.” That’s a very ambitious - and perhaps unrealistic - campaign promise. Nonetheless, it shows she is an outspoken solar proponent. While Trump’s site says he is “committed to an ‘all of the above’ energy plan,” which would include efforts to “save the coal industry” and resurrect the contested Keystone Pipeline, he recently slammed renewables at a rally.

He said alternative energy is “so expensive, and honestly, it’s not working so good.” He added, “I know a lot about solar, I love solar, but the payback is what - 18 years? Oh great, let me do it, 18 years.” Trump then said of wind turbines, “The wind kills all your birds. All your birds, killed.” (After years of covering the wind industry as well, I can assure you countless studies have proven that is a false exaggeration of wind farms’ potential avian impacts.)

When it comes to Trump, I understand the allure. People are sick and tired of the status quo and bland, ineffective politicians. Plus, whether you agree with his controversial rhetoric and proposals, he’s flat-out entertaining. But an entertainer isn’t what we need.

Admittedly, I’m not a big fan of Clinton either, yet if she really represents “more of the same” from the past eight years of the Obama administration, as many have claimed, that is OK with me. Like him or not, Obama has significantly increased cleantech funding, approved renewables development on public lands and helped lead the way on global climate initiatives. Trump says he wants to “make America great again,” but as far as renewable energy policy goes, the country already is great and should continue to get even greater.

Without a solar advocate in the White House, the next four years could be tough for the U.S. market. Energy policy should mean a lot to solar professionals, as it also affects the economics of the industry and its employees. Frankly, your job could be on the line, and so could mine. That’s something to consider when entering the voting booth.