Sources:
- www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues...
- www.ndtvprofit.com/bloomberg/ox...
- www.latitudemedia.com/news/investm...
- img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/66...
- heatmap.news/climate/clim...
As pressure mounts, we’ll see more adaptation solutions emerge ― critical, investable, and essential to strengthening resilience across industries, infrastructure, and communities.
Meanwhile, startups have already picked much of the low-hanging fruit in the software-driven fields of risk analytics and climate intelligence.
Adaptation, however, tends to have lower profit potential. Many adaptation solutions are infrastructure-/rollout-heavy (e.g., dams) and/or capital-heavy (e.g., insurance). These challenges often fit incumbents better.
Again, the incentives are clear: Mitigation solutions often rely on disruptive innovation with high growth and strong ROI potential.
Just 3-8% of climate venture capital goes to startups preparing for the impacts of climate change. The vast majority of adaptation is publicly funded (98%), whereas in mitigation, it's around 50:50.
Of course, investing isn’t just about emissions ― many other motives are at play, all lumped together in the chart. Mobility and energy may offer easier high ROIs, but we can’t afford to neglect the other segments.
Mobility and energy are overfunded compared to their emissions. Other sectors such as agri, industry, and the built environment are underfunded, despite being high-emission sectors.
Remember how digital ad spend lagged behind internet & mobile usage? Climate tech funding has a similar mismatch.
Taken from liftoff.energy.gov/vpp/ ― taxonomy apparently originally introduced in eta.lbl.gov/publications...
Shift, Shape, Shed, Shimmy: The four moves of a good grid choreo.
I like the illustration below, which nicely categorizes the different grid services in the DER (Distributed Energy Resources) and DR (Demand Response) world we're headed into.
