Let me be clear up front: There’s a lot to like about the article Forbes posted on its website with the headline “Clinton, Trump And The Future Of The U.S. Solar Industry.” It’s a fair assessment of the two candidates competing to be the nation’s 45th president (technically the 44th person to hold the office, as Grover Cleveland was elected to two non-consecutive terms — but I digress). And it’s pretty blunt about the fact the choice is stark for the solar industry.

On the one hand, there is Secretary Clinton, whose well-publicized plan to install 500,000,000 solar panels by the end of her first term has been met alternately with measured optimism and outright snickering. But even if she doesn’t reach her (perhaps outsized) goal, a Clinton presidency can safely be predicted to be an overall positive for the solar industry.

On the other hand, you have Donald J. Trump, who says he “loves solar” while saying it doesn’t work so [sic] good.” Trump’s energy policy advisory group is laden with fossil-fuel executives. And he still doesn’t have an official policy on renewable energy — let alone solar — yet (and I’m not holding my breath that he ever will).

But despite largely good reporting, the article does get at least a couple of things wrong:

  • “The 2016 U.S. presidential election will be a closely-watched affair in the solar industry, given that solar demand is still largely dependent on government incentives and favorable regulation.”

While there is certainly a policy component to solar’s success — as there is with any industry, whether it’s solar, wind, coal or automobiles — to say the industry is “largely dependent” on them is a bit of an overstatement. With falling prices for panels and other system components, solar has actually reached grid parity in many communities in the United States. And recent developments in the panel industry (Chinese production has, yet again, outpaced demand significantly) may have prices dropping even further in the near future.

  • “The U.S. is seen as the standard bearer of sorts for the world when it comes to climate and renewable energy policy, with emerging economies often following the country’s lead.”

I suspect the writers are trying to give Forbes’ readers warm and fuzzy feelings about how the country handles its solar industry. But to say the United States is a standard bearer for climate and renewable energy policy, particularly on solar policy, is laughable. It’s not even the leader of Western countries (that honor belongs to Germany).

Right now, the two undisputed “standard bearers” for solar are Germany and China (their relative ranking depends on to whom you are listening). Even Japan and Italy are beating the United States, which places fifth on most “Top Solar Power Producing Countries” lists. Pretending the United States is a solar standard bearer could allow the country’s legislators to rest on their laurels — such as they are — on solar power. That would be a huge mistake.

But those problems are relatively minor compared to the idea that solar policy is being taken seriously by writers who appear at Forbes.com. Let’s hope the article reaches beyond the insular solar choir so more people can understand what’s at stake for solar in this election.