Climate Tech
Crusoe Is Pushing the Definition of Climate Tech
A climate tech company powered by natural gas has always been an odd concept. Now as it moves into developing data centers, it insists it’s remaining true to its roots.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
A climate tech company powered by natural gas has always been an odd concept. Now as it moves into developing data centers, it insists it’s remaining true to its roots.
This fusion startup is ahead of schedule.
The uncertainty created by Trump’s erratic policymaking could not have come at a worse time for the industry.
While they’re getting more accurate all the time, they still rely on data from traditional models — and possibly always will.
The airline is making an investment with an eye toward one day producing jet fuel from the captured carbon.
Romany Webb, the deputy director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, has some answers.
Grantees told Heatmap they were informed that Bill Gates’ climate funding organization would not renew its support.
Bill Gates’ climate tech advocacy organization has told its partners that it will slash its grantmaking budget this year, dealing a blow to climate-focused policy and advocacy groups that relied on the Microsoft founder, Heatmap has learned.
Breakthrough Energy, the umbrella organization for Gates’ various climate-focused programs, alerted many nonprofit grantees earlier this month that it would not be renewing its support for them. This pullback will not affect Breakthrough’s $3.5 billion climate-focused venture capital arm, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, which funds an extensive portfolio of climate tech companies. Breakthrough’s fellowship program, which provides early-stage climate tech leaders with funding and assistance, will also remain intact, a spokesperson confirmed. They would not comment on whether this change will lead to layoffs at Breakthrough Energy.
“Bill Gates and Breakthrough Energy remain as committed as ever to using our voice and resources to advocate for the energy innovations needed to address climate change,” the Breakthrough spokesperson told me in a written statement. “We continue to believe that innovation in energy is essential for achieving global climate goals and securing a prosperous, sustainable world for future generations.”
Gates founded Breakthrough Energy in 2015 to help develop and deploy technologies that would help the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The organization made more than $96 million in grants in 2023, the most recent year for which data is available.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily
Among its beneficiaries was the Breakthrough Institute, a California-based think tank that promotes technological solutions to climate change. (Despite having a similar name, it is not affiliatedwith Breakthrough Energy.) Last week, a representative from Breakthrough Energy told the institute’s executive director, Ted Nordhaus, that its funding would not be renewed. The Breakthrough Institute had previously received a two-year grant of about $1.2 million per year, which wrapped up this month.
“What we were told is that they are ceasing all of their climate grantmaking — zeroed out immediately after the USAID shutdown because Bill wants to refocus all of his grantmaking efforts on global health,” Nordhaus told me on Monday, referring to the Trump administration’s efforts to defund the United States Agency for International Development. “But it’s very clear that this wasn’t brought on solely by USAID. I had heard from several people that there was a big reassessment going on for a couple of months.”
The Breakthrough spokesperson disputed this characterization, and denied that cutbacks were due to the USAID shutdown or a shift in funding from climate to global health initiatives. The spokesperson also told me that some grantmaking budget remains, though they would not reveal how much.
As for Breakthrough Institute, the funding cut will primarily impact its agricultural program, which received about 90% of its budget from Breakthrough Energy. Nordhaus is trying to figure out how to keep that program afloat, while the institute’s other three areas of policy focus — energy and climate, nuclear innovation, and energy and development — remain largely unaffected.
Multiple other organizations confirmed to Heatmap that they also will not receive future grants from Breakthrough Energy. A representative for the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment, a trade organization for sustainability professionals, told me that Breakthrough had recently informed the group that it would not renew a $400,000 grant, which is set to wrap up this May. (ACLCA’s spokesperson also noted that the grant had not come with any indication that it would be renewed.) Another former grantee told me that while their organization is currently wrapping up a grant with Breakthrough and does not have anything in the works with them for this year, they expected that future funding would be impacted, though they did not explain why.
Breakthrough Energy made up a relatively small share — perhaps 1% — of climate philanthropy worldwide. Foundations and individuals around the world gave a total of $9 billion to $15 billion to climate causes in 2023, according to an analysis from the Climateworks Foundation.
But what has made Breakthrough Energy distinctive is its support for policy and advocacy groups that promote a wide range of technological solutions, including nuclear energy and direct air capture, to fight climate change.
“Their presence will be missed,” said the CEO of another climate nonprofit who was notified by Breakthrough that its funding would not be renewed. Breakthrough Energy “was one of the few funders supporting pragmatic research and advocacy work that pushed at neglected areas such as the need for zero-carbon firm power and accelerated energy innovation,” they added.
"Even if it’s a drop in the bucket, it still makes a difference,” another former grantee with a particularly large budget told me. This organization recently sent Breakthrough an inquiry about partnering up again and is waiting to hear back. “But for small organizations, it’s make it or break it.”
Speculation abounds as to the rationale behind Breakthrough’s funding cuts. “I have heard that one of the reasons that Bill decided to stop funding climate was that he concluded that there was so much money in climate that his money really wasn’t that important,” Nordhaus told me. But that is not true when it comes to agriculture, he said, which comprises about 12% of global emissions. ”There’s very little money for advocating for agriculture innovation to address the climate impacts of the ag sector,” Nordhaus told me.
Gates, who privately donated to a nonprofit affiliated with the Harris campaign in 2024 but did not endorse the Democrat, dined with Trump and Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, for more than three hours at Mar-a-Lago around New Year’s Day, he told Wall Street Journal editor-in-chief Emma Tucker. He said that Trump was interested in the possibility of eradicating polio or developing an HIV vaccine. “I felt like he was energized and looking forward to helping to drive innovation,” he told her, days before the inauguration.
Since then, Trump’s war on USAID has frozen funding to a polio eradication program and shut down the phase 1 clinical trial of an HIV vaccine in South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda.
Chestnut Carbon announces a major new funding round on the heels of its deal with Microsoft.
The embattled nature-based carbon removal market got a significant show of support today as Chestnut Carbon announced a whopping $160 million Series B funding round, led by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The startup focuses on planting trees and vegetation as well as on improving forest management practices to better remove carbon from the atmosphere.
This announcement comes on the heels of the company’s recent deal with Microsoft to remove over 7 million tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over a 25-year period. That involves planting about 35 million native trees over about 60,000 acres. It’s Microsoft’s largest carbon removal contract in the U.S., and one of the largest domestic carbon removal projects period — including those that rely on engineered solutions such as direct air capture.
Chestnut aims to fill a void in the forest carbon removal space by employing a rigorous measurement, reporting, and verification framework that it claims leaves little room for accounting errors and greenwashing, offering a solution that, hopefully, the market can finally trust. So far it seems, investors are buying it.
Chestnut will use this latest funding to build out afforestation projects — that is, planting trees in areas where, at least in modern times, forests have not existed. “We’re buying this farmland — this is marginal pasture land — and we are turning that back into a native forest,” Chestnut’s chief financial officer, Greg Adams, told me. The company buys land that is ill-suited for farming due to factors such as acidic, alkaline, or nutrient-poor soil or a climate that’s hostile to food crops but works for certain tree species.
The startup began planting native tree species in Arkansas and Alabama in 2022, and has since expanded into Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma. There are a number of benefits to planting in the Southeast, Adams told me. For one, the region’s climate allows trees to grow particularly fast, leading to more immediate carbon benefits. Also, the area isn’t very wildfire-prone, but is extremely biodiverse — so if one species of tree falls victim to disease or blight, much of the forest is likely to remain unscathed. “We look to build a forest that, if you had a time machine and you went back 100 years, would look very similar to what was there 100 years ago,” Adams told me.
While planting trees isn’t particularly expensive, land acquisition is, and that’s what the majority of Chestnut’s Series B funding will go towards. Adams told me that owning the land also helps to “reinforce the permanent nature” of Chestnut’s carbon removals, since the company has 100% control over land management decisions.
Forest-based carbon offsets are famously prone to fraud and other accounting improprieties. A 2023 investigation showed that many rainforest carbon credits approved by Verra, a leading credit certifier, for instance, were essentially bogus.
Chestnut is well aware that past scandals have eroded trust in nature-based removal efforts and aims to counteract the industry’s dubious reputation. While Verra does certify Chestnut Carbon’s “improved forest management” credits, another entity called Gold Standard certifies the company’s afforestation credits.
In addition to aligning with Gold Standard’s methodology, Adams told me the team uses a number of tools to verify the amount of carbon that its trees remove, including one that the company invented itself, which has plotted every parcel of land in the lower 48 states. This tool uses public and private data to inform Chestnut whether a plot of land is suitable for afforestation. Then, given a hypothetical mix of trees and their space relative to each other, an algorithm determines how much CO2 they would capture and sequester over a 50-year period. After the digital work is done, foresters visit the proposed site and develop a more nuanced analysis that takes into account factors such as expected yield over a given period of time and various mortality risks.
“We sell carbon credits, but we ultimately sell reputational risk insurance, because these are voluntary,” Adams told me, saying he recognizes the fragile nature of the market at this stage. “I want to make sure that what we do is seen differently, in a positive way, and ultimately it’s not going to blow back in our customers’ faces.”