Take the time to read this Politico article.  It's an important glimpse inside the world of the environmental funding community, and the role the community plays in energy policy.

Just a few quick thoughts and questions:

1. Flooding D.C. with funding on a very periodic basis to support one or two specific legislative efforts is not, um, a terribly effective policy strategy.  

2. "[W]ho spent about 30 minutes with the group before racing out to watch a Chicago Bulls playoff game" ... No comment.

3. By reactively pulling back so hard on funding, environmental foundations are basically pulling the rug out from under many organizations that are only now hitting their stride.  Foundations need to take a venture capital mindset. No early-stage VC thinks it'll take only two years to get their latest bet up and running and proven out. This is especially true for membership-driven organizations, which take a few years to start getting momentum.

4. The environmental foundation community needs to decide whether or not they support market-based (i.e., entrepreneurial) solutions. Otherwise, they end up finding allies in strange places: Carbon cap and trade is being rolled back in New Jersey and New Hampshire by anti-environmental groups, and it is also under attack in California by environmental groups that decry specific attributes of AB32.  Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is not, um, a terribly effective policy strategy.

5. No U.S. energy and climate policy reform effort will be successful unless it is truly bipartisan.  That doesn't mean having one or two votes from the "other" side; it means a truly bipartisan approach -- which will require compromise and incremental changes, as well as a supportive business voice.

6. When will the cleantech business community step up to speak up as one voice on these issues, instead of relying upon the environmental community and sector-specific trade associations?  Anti-cleantech efforts don't differentiate between cleantech sectors.