When we talk about fashion and branding, I believe we are overlooking the fundamentals. Global warming is accelerating, and scientists didn’t expect it to happen this quickly. For founders (and believers, VCs, etc.), the core focus should be on impact, purpose, and preserving (all kind of) life on Earth. Branding is a tool; it should not be treated as a fundamental, as it often is.
In conclusion, I agree: climate tech might be seen as old-fashioned (...by fashionistas), but not the fundamentals. The daily news distracts us. Climate change should no longer be the elephant in the room!
You’re absolutely right—impact and preserving life are the mission. Branding? It's just a tool.
But here’s the thing: without strong branding, who’s actually listening?
The world’s drowning in noise, and if climate tech doesn’t cut through, it dies in the shadows. Branding isn’t about looking cool; it’s about making sure people care enough to act.
If the elephant’s still in the room, maybe we’re not telling the story loud or bold enough.
What do you think—is ignoring branding a luxury we can’t afford?
Our drivers should stay intact : preserving life rather than make the highest multiple (that being said, Founders must take care of this for investors, but this is a mean for them/us, not esp. the reason why they develop solutions). At the same time I hope the noise will reduce (to some extent) as this would mean Climate is not the elephant in the room anymore. In other words, we will succeed if and when people will put their priority here. Humanity is responsible but also the solution, so we need an alignment (again, to some extent ;) ).
The key is to maintain that dual focus : fighting for policy changes, societal awareness, and funding, while also accelerating the development of scalable, solutions. When the tipping point comes (and it will come because of the Climate change itself), we want to be ready to hit the ground running with technology that can immediately make a difference.
Absolutely, fighting is non-negotiable—our drivers must remain rooted in preserving life and creating scalable solutions, not just maximizing returns. Founders play a crucial role here, ensuring that while investors have their metrics, the mission remains the heartbeat of their innovation.
You're spot on about reducing the "noise." When climate is no longer the elephant in the room, it will mean we've succeeded in making it a priority for everyone—not just for those already in the fight. Humanity's alignment is essential, even if it's incremental. Policy, awareness, funding, and technology must work in unison to prepare for that tipping point.
When it comes (and it will come), having solutions ready to deploy will be the difference between just reacting and driving meaningful change. It's about building that readiness now while pushing for the systemic shifts needed to make progress inevitable. Let’s keep fighting and building for the world we all want to live in! 🙌🌍
Climatetech is not dead unless you actually question its claims of addressing climate. Climatetech has always been unicorn chasers and had little to no impact on climate. There will be IPOs and unicorns but they won't really address climate change in short term. You can see that by the lack of data of carbon drawdown of the portfolio companies or funds. Dry Air Capture is a Trump like fantasy that will rarely impact climate. DAC is taking a shot glass to the atlantic ocean and say you are going to move it.
Climatetech is not dead it is not a solution to climate change. Once biodiversity has a true value, money will flow there.
Interesting take, and I appreciate the skepticism.
You’re absolutely right that the climate crisis won’t be solved by tech alone. No single technology, not even the unicorns, can tackle the scale of this issue. And yes, there are plenty of players chasing headlines rather than real impact.
But dismissing climate tech outright feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Climate tech isn’t the answer—it’s part of a larger puzzle. The question is: how do we ensure it’s solving the right problems?
Would love to hear your thoughts on what’s missing or where the focus should be.
Genau richtig jetzt geht es richtig los mit den Lösungen weltweit miteinander füreinander für die Zukunft warum keiner will sterben Wir Alle weltweit wollen Lösungen miteinander füreinander weltweit besser gesünder glücklicher hoffnungsvoller mit der Mutter Erde und der Gottes Schöpfung im Einklang der Harmonie des Lebens weltweit Danke
Biggest problem climate protection has always had has been marketing and branding.
For one, I would suggest we abandon "climate change" as a naming convention and instead talk about the 2 macro problems that bubble up into it:
1. Global warming
2. Biodiversity collapse
When it comes to solutions, we can learn from the Montreal Protocol and why that was so effective. It was a single issue focus - protecting the ozone layer - and that focus really enabled folks from all politic spectrums to come together.
When we try to lump so many different issues into one basket of "climate solutions" or "climate tech", we create opportunity for more disagreement of things within that basket. This is the same reason Congress is so ineffective - because their bills encompass way too many things that rarely get majority approval as there will always be something in there that is a non-starter for someone.
Instead of climate tech, why not break things into "regenerative agriculture tech", "clean power tech", etc....
I think we need to stop lumping everything together and expect everyone to get on board with it.
I am not dismissing climatetech. I am asking to change their name from climatetech to unicorn chaser. If they are really impacting climate, publish the carbon draw down. All of the climate tech funds combined will never reach the potential that Prof. Rattan Lal claims by nature based solutions. He talks of 330 GT of carbon drawdown if you restore the soil and properly treat vegetation. https://web.archive.org/web/20220518061517/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP12flctbuw
Show me which climate tech does that. The issue is biodiversity has no unicorns.
We need 3 things:
-Reduce co2 emissions by phasing out intensive carbon use (fossil fuels, cement, transportation,, agriculture).
I realise that service providers, climate advisors, asset managers and asset owners, climate tech mafia, and carbon intensive industries all have vested interest in selling their story. Don't be fooled.
We need to speak the radical truth and confront the climate tech nonsense. Become a George Carlin.
You’re right—nature-based solutions like restoring soil are powerful. But why frame it as either/or?
It’s not soil versus climate tech; we need all the tools:
Cut emissions.
Scale sequestration (nature and tech).
Innovate to buy time.
Yes, climate tech needs better data transparency—no argument there. But dismissing it entirely? That’s leaving weapons on the table in a fight we can’t afford to lose. Thoughts?
When we talk about fashion and branding, I believe we are overlooking the fundamentals. Global warming is accelerating, and scientists didn’t expect it to happen this quickly. For founders (and believers, VCs, etc.), the core focus should be on impact, purpose, and preserving (all kind of) life on Earth. Branding is a tool; it should not be treated as a fundamental, as it often is.
In conclusion, I agree: climate tech might be seen as old-fashioned (...by fashionistas), but not the fundamentals. The daily news distracts us. Climate change should no longer be the elephant in the room!
You’re absolutely right—impact and preserving life are the mission. Branding? It's just a tool.
But here’s the thing: without strong branding, who’s actually listening?
The world’s drowning in noise, and if climate tech doesn’t cut through, it dies in the shadows. Branding isn’t about looking cool; it’s about making sure people care enough to act.
If the elephant’s still in the room, maybe we’re not telling the story loud or bold enough.
What do you think—is ignoring branding a luxury we can’t afford?
Of course not, we need to fight !
Our drivers should stay intact : preserving life rather than make the highest multiple (that being said, Founders must take care of this for investors, but this is a mean for them/us, not esp. the reason why they develop solutions). At the same time I hope the noise will reduce (to some extent) as this would mean Climate is not the elephant in the room anymore. In other words, we will succeed if and when people will put their priority here. Humanity is responsible but also the solution, so we need an alignment (again, to some extent ;) ).
The key is to maintain that dual focus : fighting for policy changes, societal awareness, and funding, while also accelerating the development of scalable, solutions. When the tipping point comes (and it will come because of the Climate change itself), we want to be ready to hit the ground running with technology that can immediately make a difference.
Absolutely, fighting is non-negotiable—our drivers must remain rooted in preserving life and creating scalable solutions, not just maximizing returns. Founders play a crucial role here, ensuring that while investors have their metrics, the mission remains the heartbeat of their innovation.
You're spot on about reducing the "noise." When climate is no longer the elephant in the room, it will mean we've succeeded in making it a priority for everyone—not just for those already in the fight. Humanity's alignment is essential, even if it's incremental. Policy, awareness, funding, and technology must work in unison to prepare for that tipping point.
When it comes (and it will come), having solutions ready to deploy will be the difference between just reacting and driving meaningful change. It's about building that readiness now while pushing for the systemic shifts needed to make progress inevitable. Let’s keep fighting and building for the world we all want to live in! 🙌🌍
Climatetech is not dead unless you actually question its claims of addressing climate. Climatetech has always been unicorn chasers and had little to no impact on climate. There will be IPOs and unicorns but they won't really address climate change in short term. You can see that by the lack of data of carbon drawdown of the portfolio companies or funds. Dry Air Capture is a Trump like fantasy that will rarely impact climate. DAC is taking a shot glass to the atlantic ocean and say you are going to move it.
Climatetech is not dead it is not a solution to climate change. Once biodiversity has a true value, money will flow there.
Interesting take, and I appreciate the skepticism.
You’re absolutely right that the climate crisis won’t be solved by tech alone. No single technology, not even the unicorns, can tackle the scale of this issue. And yes, there are plenty of players chasing headlines rather than real impact.
But dismissing climate tech outright feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Climate tech isn’t the answer—it’s part of a larger puzzle. The question is: how do we ensure it’s solving the right problems?
Would love to hear your thoughts on what’s missing or where the focus should be.
Genau richtig jetzt geht es richtig los mit den Lösungen weltweit miteinander füreinander für die Zukunft warum keiner will sterben Wir Alle weltweit wollen Lösungen miteinander füreinander weltweit besser gesünder glücklicher hoffnungsvoller mit der Mutter Erde und der Gottes Schöpfung im Einklang der Harmonie des Lebens weltweit Danke
Thanks for the comment. In English would be more practical tho for the rest of the planet ☺️
Biggest problem climate protection has always had has been marketing and branding.
For one, I would suggest we abandon "climate change" as a naming convention and instead talk about the 2 macro problems that bubble up into it:
1. Global warming
2. Biodiversity collapse
When it comes to solutions, we can learn from the Montreal Protocol and why that was so effective. It was a single issue focus - protecting the ozone layer - and that focus really enabled folks from all politic spectrums to come together.
When we try to lump so many different issues into one basket of "climate solutions" or "climate tech", we create opportunity for more disagreement of things within that basket. This is the same reason Congress is so ineffective - because their bills encompass way too many things that rarely get majority approval as there will always be something in there that is a non-starter for someone.
Instead of climate tech, why not break things into "regenerative agriculture tech", "clean power tech", etc....
I think we need to stop lumping everything together and expect everyone to get on board with it.
I am not dismissing climatetech. I am asking to change their name from climatetech to unicorn chaser. If they are really impacting climate, publish the carbon draw down. All of the climate tech funds combined will never reach the potential that Prof. Rattan Lal claims by nature based solutions. He talks of 330 GT of carbon drawdown if you restore the soil and properly treat vegetation. https://web.archive.org/web/20220518061517/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP12flctbuw
Show me which climate tech does that. The issue is biodiversity has no unicorns.
We need 3 things:
-Reduce co2 emissions by phasing out intensive carbon use (fossil fuels, cement, transportation,, agriculture).
-Sequester carbon on massive scale
-Solar Radiation Management to give us more time to de-carbonize as described by Sir David King. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLOl1BwJfeE
I realise that service providers, climate advisors, asset managers and asset owners, climate tech mafia, and carbon intensive industries all have vested interest in selling their story. Don't be fooled.
We need to speak the radical truth and confront the climate tech nonsense. Become a George Carlin.
You’re right—nature-based solutions like restoring soil are powerful. But why frame it as either/or?
It’s not soil versus climate tech; we need all the tools:
Cut emissions.
Scale sequestration (nature and tech).
Innovate to buy time.
Yes, climate tech needs better data transparency—no argument there. But dismissing it entirely? That’s leaving weapons on the table in a fight we can’t afford to lose. Thoughts?