Just a few random notes on a snowy Monday afternoon:

1. As it's getting to the end of the year, I'm pulling together some predictions for 2011.  But it's always fun to look back at how I did last year.  The "year of energy efficiency"?  Check.  "Something in carbon legislation will be passed, but it will be more symbolic than meaningful"?  Not quite right, but directionally correct in assuming a more pessimistic stance than many had at that time.  "A pickup in investment activity, including the return of the megadeal"?  Yeah, probably technically correct, although Q3 of this year wasn't encouraging.  "New hybrid investment models will evolve"?  Never wrong, but often early, I like to say...  "Some booms and some busts"?  Ugh, how could such vague pablum be either right or wrong... What I meant to say with that was that we would see some high profile exits but also a shakeout.  And that was pretty much right, although I think the exits were probably more underwhelming than even I expected.  Anyway, more predictions for 2011 coming soon.

2. Total self-promotion alert, but I thought Kanellos of Greentech Media did a bang-up job interviewing Brian Chemel of Digital Lumens and getting at some of the reasons I'm excited about that investment of ours, so I thought I would pass it along.  Check it out.  Of course, the fixtures are just Step One of the story...

3. I still don't understand why Vinod and others have to go out of their way to castigate energy efficiency, or in general any implementation of today's clean technologies, along the way to advocating more governmental resources for breakthrough innovation.  My only guess is that they see ARPA-E and similarly important programs for innovation under some political pressure right now, and are trying to put innovation to the top of the queue for dollars, instead of things like Homestar.  But it's really quite unnecessary.  And a shame, because I generally applaud and agree with their sentiments -- except when they turn it into either/or type language.

The short answer is that we need both.  We need to be thinking long term, about what breakthrough innovations are needed, and how we can create fertile ground and sufficient resources for these innovations to sprout and emerge over time, perhaps with more ARPA-E type programs like Vinod asked for in his Foreign Policy piece.  But we also need to tackle what can be tackled today.  For the sake of preventing further damage while awaiting the breakthroughs. For the sake of laying the groundwork for the new industries that Vinod and others hope to build.  For the sake of not allowing the U.S. to get even more dependent upon foreign sources of energy, and to fall even further behind in clean technology market development.  And hey, just in case some of those breakthroughs maybe, just maybe take a little bit longer than Vinod and others expect.  

So it's unnecessary and counterproductive to see tweets like "throwing money at today's clean-energy technologies could keep us from discovering tomorrow's".  There's plenty of room to be very much in favor of supporting the necessity of breakthrough innovation while still acknowledging the need for implementation support for today's technology -- see for instance Bilal Zuberi's good post the other day on this topic.  And after all, it's not like anyone argues that "throwing money at treating cancer patients with today's technology could keep us from discovering tomorrow's cures," that would be quickly and loudly attacked.  So I just don't get it.  We shouldn't help people make their existing homes more efficient?  We shouldn't build out wind and solar where it makes sense with today's technology?  We shouldn't encourage switching coal-fired power generation over to natural gas, as a bridge to a cleaner fuel mix in the future?  

Besides, if these investors and pundits REALLY wanted to promote future breakthrough innovations, they'd spend more time arguing for a lot more government dollars dedicated to training tomorrow's engineers and scientists, rather than arguing for more government dollars for their own existing "black swan" bets.  This whole "debate" smacks of self-interest on all sides... Forget the either/or.  Let's all demand both.  And come together to support more resources for basic science and engineering education for all Americans.

4. Watching the "lame duck" session in Congress brings to mind some political lessons for the cleantech industry, for future efforts to get "carbon legislation" passed.  First, stop talking about carbon.  Talk about energy security and preventing high energy costs for homeowners and drivers in the future.  Second, make it a moral issue.  Ask how future generations, or even just today's younger generation, will view today's votes.  More emotion, less wonk.  And third, put military leadership front and center.  Because the U.S. military already understands the necessity of figuring out energy and water solutions today.  For their own logistical needs, and to prevent future conflicts.  And the senior brass is increasingly willing to speak out about it, in addition to quietly reaching out to the cleantech venture community for solutions.  They can and should champion this issue, in a bipartisan way.

Policy issues are going to continue to be front and center for the cleantech industry on into 2011 and beyond.  If you and your company are going to be affected by them, consider joining the Clean Economy Network and adding your voice to the discussion.