You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
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:
California passed a new fire safety law more than four years ago. It still isn’t in force.
For more than four years, California has had a law on the books meant to protect homes and buildings during an urban firestorm like the Palisade and Eaton fires. But it’s never gone into effect.
In theory, the policy was simple. It directed state officials to develop new rules for buildings in areas with high fire risk, which would govern what people were allowed to put within the five-foot perimeter immediately surrounding their homes. A large body of evidence shows that clearing this area, known in the fire mitigation world as “zone zero,” of combustible materials can be the difference between a building that alights during a wildfire and one that can weather the blaze.
The new rules — essentially just a list of items allowed in that five-foot zone — were due two years ago, by January 1, 2023. But the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has yet to begin a formal rulemaking process. Ask anyone who’s been following this thread what’s taking so long, and they’ll almost certainly point to one thing: politics.
“There’s a ton of science about what to do, but the science has run into challenges with social acceptance, and therefore political acceptance,” Michael Wara, director of Stanford University’s Climate and Energy Policy Program, told me. People do not want to be told how they can or can’t landscape or furnish or otherwise adorn the outside of their homes. Inevitably, when the rules do come out, you’ll hear about Gavin Newsom coming to take away people’s decks and policing gardens.
No one thinks that zone zero rules, if enacted and adhered to, could have prevented fires in the Pacific Palisades or Altadena or saved every structure in the recent fires’ path. But alongside other fire mitigation strategies, zone zero design can significantly lower the chances of a given building burning, and therefore the chances that a fire will spread to neighboring buildings, and ultimately reduce the risk of fires becoming compounding, devastating disasters. Wara likened it to car safety rules like seatbelts and airbags — people still die in car accidents, but far fewer than would otherwise.
The question now is whether the record-breaking destruction in Los Angeles will be enough to convince people that zone zero rules are effective and worthwhile. Past experience shows the answer is not an obvious yes.
There are three ways buildings ignite during a wildfire, Yana Valachovic, a forest scientist with the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network who specializes in community resilience and the built environment, told me. They are either exposed to burning embers, direct flames, or radiant heat, though most often a combination.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
Embers — hot, hard debris of burned material from a fire — can be carried miles away from their origin by the wind and create new spot fires next to homes. “What happens with those embers is they get thrown at the building, they hit the walls, the siding, and then drop to the base and collect at the base,” Valachovic said, “so you can have not just one, but thousands of embers at the base of our structures.”
Embers can also penetrate buildings through open windows and ventilation systems. If radiant heat from nearby burning structures causes windows to shatter or fall out, that can also create new vectors for embers to enter the home. “Embers find their way,” Valachovic said.
Fire mitigation experts promote two strategies for reducing vulnerability, and they go hand in hand. The first is home hardening, which could mean building with fire-resistant materials but also includes smaller but effective actions like covering air vents with fine mesh screens and sealing gaps to try to block embers. The second is creating so-called “defensible space,” or a buffer around the building, where any vegetation is carefully selected and managed to slow the spread of fire to and from the building. California divides defensible space into three different zones: Zone one extends from 5 feet away from the structure to 30 feet, and zone two goes out to 100 feet away. Then, of course, there’s zone zero.
The state has had regulations on the books to require at least 30 feet of defensible space in high-risk areas since 1965, and it updated the standards to establish a two-zone system in 2006. In both cases, the rules were “really framed around, how do you interrupt flames running at the building?” said Valachovic. The regulations included thinning trees and removing lower branches, clearing some trees that were closer to homes, clearing dead wood and litter, and pruning branches that hang over buildings. But they still allowed for vegetation right up against the house.
Since then, wildfire post-mortems have found that this scenario of flames burning a path to a building is not a primary driver of structure loss. “It was missing the point,” Valachovic told me of the previous rule structure. “What we’ve seen now for the last decade is that embers are really driving our home loss issue, and so we’re basically allowing all this vegetation and combustible material to be present in the zone that is really very vulnerable.”
In August 2020, after Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in California due to an explosion of wildfires, the state legislature passed AB 3074, which finally sought to bridge the gap by creating a new, “ember-resistant zone” — zone zero. Had the rules been implemented under the timeline mandated by the law, new homes would have had to comply beginning in 2023, and existing homes would have had to comply beginning in 2024. Like the earlier defensible space rules, they would have applied to homes located in parts of the state designated as Fire Hazard Severity Zones. These are generally areas that you might think of as the “wildland-urban interface,” where homes abut wildland vegetation like forests or scrublands, but others extend into more urban areas. Almost all of the burned area in the Pacific Palisades, for instance, would have been subject to the rules, while only a small portion of the homes in Altadena are in the zone.
When I reached out to the California Natural Resources Agency, the umbrella group for both the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and CalFire, to ask if there was an updated timeline for the regulations, one of the first things that Tony Andersen, the Deputy Secretary for Communications, told me, was not about the timeline but about the ultimate cost of compliance.
“We recognize there are costs associated with doing this work around homes and structures,” Andersen told me via email, “and we are focused on identifying options for financial assistance as well as education and outreach to help owners prepare and prioritize mitigations.” He then noted that the rulemaking was a “complex process” that the agency wanted to get right, and said it aimed to present a draft proposal to the Board “as soon as is feasible, most likely in the coming months.”
Andersen’s response illustrates one of several tensions that have made it difficult to write the zone zero rules — and will ultimately make them difficult to implement. If the rules say you can’t have a wooden deck, for example, or you can’t have a fence that touches the building, homeowners could face costly retrofits. And despite witnessing the horror of destructive wildfires, many homeowners don’t want to switch their wooden fence for a metal one, or replace their bushes with gravel.
Five feet might sound like a negligible amount of space, but people are attached to the aesthetics of this zone. Homeowners have become used to “softening” the line where the walls meet the ground by filling it in with vegetation, Valachovic told me. “We really developed this idea that we don’t visually want to see our foundations,” she said. “From a fire defense perspective, this idea that we have combustible material basically ringing our houses and our structures, that is problematic.”
Several people I interviewed for this story asked if I had seen a documentary about the aftermath of the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, California called Bring Your Own Brigade. The film captures a series of city council meetings in 2019, when officials were considering updating local building standards. They weigh a number of ideas that would reduce the risk of embers collecting on top of, inside, or next to homes, including eliminating gutters and requiring roof overhangs and a five-foot setback for any combustible material.
At the time, the Camp Fire was the deadliest and most destructive wildfire in state history, killing 85 people, displacing more than 50,000, and destroying more than 18,000 structures. But during a public hearing, community members lashed out at the potential cost, warned that new standards would prevent displaced residents from moving back, and decried the aesthetic implications.
“Paradise is an individualistic town,” one person says. “That’s part of the charm and the quirkiness. We don’t need consistency and uniformity.”
In another scene, a city councilmember asks Paradise Fire Chief John Messina to narrow down the list to just one rule that would make the community more fire resistant. “That five-foot barrier around your house is extremely important,” he replies. “That would be the No. 1 thing out of all of this that I would say would defend your home the best and have the most impact.” Shortly after, the council votes down the measure.
Michael Wara, who recalled the scene to me over the phone, said a similar thing happened when the fire chief in his community in Mill Valley tried to get the city council to adopt zone zero rules. “The word got out in the community that this crazy fire chief was going to make us rip up our front yards,” he said. When the council convened for a vote, more than a thousand people showed up to oppose it. The council ended up passing it as a voluntary measure.
To Wara, part of the problem is the language used to communicate these ideas with the public. “Zone zero” and “hardening” conjure a bunker mentality, he said. “I do not want my family to live in a bunker that is hardened to attack. I want my family to live in a home that is welcoming.”
He also thinks the state can reach a compromise, like allowing succulents and other fire-resistant greenery in zone zero. The rules don’t have to turn these areas into gravel and concrete wastelands to be effective.
Courtesy of the Los Angeles County Fire Department
The Los Angeles County Fire Department recently included photos in a notice to homeowners about defensible space rules and the upcoming zone zero regulations that illustrate how landscapes might strike that balance. The images feature stone walkways immediately next to homes, followed by raised beds made of metal and concrete containing attractive landscaping. Not quite “quirky” and “charming,” but far from a barren dystopia.
Despite the delay in implementing zone zero, California has tried to pitch it as part of a strategy to solve the state’s insurance crisis. In 2022, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara enacted new rules requiring insurance companies to provide discounts to homeowners who do home hardening retrofits and create defensible space.
“That’s terrific,” Dave Jones, the director of the Climate Risk Initiative at the University of California, Berkeley, and Lara’s predecessor as insurance commissioner, told me. “But you don’t get the discount if they won’t write you the insurance.”
Jones said the bigger issue is that the models insurance companies use to decide whether or not to write a policy do not account for fire mitigation efforts. A homeowner could take every action on the list for home hardening, create a zone zero, live in a community that’s investing in aggressive fuels reduction, and so on, and insurance companies could still deny them coverage. Last year, Jones wrote a bill that would have required companies to change the models they use to determine coverage to account for mitigation. Several insurance industry trade groups opposed the bill, arguing that it was “premature and impossible to implement given the real-world data constraints,” and that it was “inconsistent” with the state’s efforts to “restore a healthy and competitive insurance market.” It didn’t pass.
If following zone zero guidelines meant having a shot at getting insurance, maybe people would be more open to doing it, Jones argued to me. But as things stand, that’s not the case. “I don’t think the failure is so much in the state developing the standards as it is in the lack of political courage to stand up to the insurance industry and say, hey, look, enough is enough. We’re going to pass a law to require your models to account for this.”
This past year, the California legislature passed a law giving existing homes three years, instead of just one, to comply with zone zero rules once they are finalized, whenever that is. And if the regulations are finalized this year, it’s possible that some of the rebuilt structures in the Pacific Palisades and Altadena will have to meet them.
Ultimately, Valachovic sees hope in fire mitigation work. The narrative that climate change is driving these destructive wildfires can make people feel helpless. But there are so many low-cost, simple things people can do to reduce their exposure. “I just feel like we have a moral imperative to share practical, reasonable actions that people can take to make a difference, and to know that with that, the odds improve substantially.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify the role of the California Natural Resources Agency in the rulemaking process.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A list of terminated grants obtained by Heatmap contains a number of grants that will cost jobs and revenue in Republican-led states.
The Trump administration terminated billions in climate and clean energy grants on Wednesday, in what appears to be yet another act of retribution against Democrats over the government shutdown. White House budget director Russell Vought announced on X that “nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left's climate agenda is being cancelled,” noting that the projects were in 16 states, all but two of which — Vermont and New Hampshire — have Democrats in their governor’s mansion. A Department of Energy release published late last night further clarified that it was terminating 321 awards supporting 223 projects, with a total closer to $7.5 billion.
But a list of the 321 canceled grants that the Department of Energy sent to Congress, obtained by Heatmap, tells a different story. While much of the funding was awarded to blue state-based companies, the intended projects would have benefitted communities elsewhere, including in Texas, Florida, and Louisiana.
The list identifies the grants by their award numbers, and includes information on the DOE office overseeing the grant, the recipient name, and state. The document does not specify the project names, the programs under which they were awarded, or the amounts awarded.
That leaves a lot of open questions about the true impact of the terminations. It’s unclear, for instance, whether the $7.5 billion price tag the Department of Energy assigned to the cancellations is an estimate of the total amount awarded or the unspent remainder still in the agency’s coffers. Five of the listed projects, worth nearly $900 million, were already announced as terminated in an earlier round of cuts back in May.
Many of the projects listed have signed contracts with the government, are already well underway, and have spent at least some of their award. For example, the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships has already published copious educational materials related to its community-driven transportation plan for the Northeast, a project supported by one of the terminated grants.
The list does seem to confirm that blue state grants were the hardest hit, with 79 award cancellations in California, 41 in New York, 34 in Colorado (Secretary of Energy Chris Wright’s home state), 33 in Illinois, and 31 in Massachusetts.
But when I began looking up projects by their award number, I found that many would actually have benefitted Republican strongholds. Take, for example, Moment Energy, a Delaware-based company that was awarded $20 million by the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains to build the first certified manufacturing facility in the United States producing battery energy storage systems from repurposed electric vehicle batteries. The plant was set to be built in Taylor, Texas, creating 50 construction jobs and 200 new permanent positions. After receiving the Energy Department’s stamp of approval, the company raised a $15 million Series A funding round in January to help finance the plant.
Also listed are a $10 million grant for Carbon Capture Inc, a California-based company, to conduct an engineering study for a direct air capture plant in Northwest Louisiana, and a $37 million grant to New York-based Urban Mining Industries to build one of its low-carbon concrete manufacturing plants in Florida. Linde, the global industrial gas company based in Connecticut, had $10 million to build hydrogen fueling stations for heavy duty trucks in La Porte, Texas, clawed back. BKV, a Colorado-based natural gas company set to study the transportation of captured CO2 by barge throughout the Gulf Coast region, also had its $2.5 million grant canceled.
In addition to hurting investments and jobs in Republican states, the Department of Energy’s cancellations also target some unlikely victims. The list names 16 grants for General Electric, including 11 for GE Vernova, the company’s manufacturing arm, which produces natural gas turbines and components for wind energy generation; many of those awards were for wind technology research projects. The agency also canceled 24 grants for the Institute for Gas Technology and the Electric Power Research Institute, the research arms of gas and electric companies’ two biggest trade groups, respectively. Several of these awards funded research projects into carbon capture and storage.
Also on the list was a more than $6.5 million grant for a controversial study to retrofit the Four Corners coal plant in New Mexico with carbon capture equipment. The plant is currently scheduled to close in 2031.
Back in May, Wright promised Congress his agency’s review of Biden-era climate funding would be over by the end of the summer. “Certainly in the next few months, by the end of this summer — hopefully before the end of this summer — we will have run through all of the four or 500 large projects that are currently in the pipeline at the DOE,” he said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing.
As reported yesterday by Bloomberg, two regional Hydrogen Hubs in California and the Pacific Northwest — projects awarded funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to develop full hydrogen production and consumption ecosystems — are on the list. That leaves the agency’s intentions for the remaining five hubs scattered throughout the Midwest, Midatlantic, Appalachia, the Great Plains, and Texas unclear. And while the list includes a few smaller grants for early-stage Direct Air Capture Hubs, it is still a mystery whether the Department of Energy plans to support the two more advanced direct air capture projects in Louisiana and Texas that were selected for $1.2 billion under the Biden administration.
On a major energy acquisition, carbon cycle cash, and a cheaper EV
Current conditions: Hurricane Imelda hit Bermuda as a Category 2 storm • Storm Amy, the first named UK storm of the season, will bring heavy rains and wind to Scotland, England, and Wales on Friday • Sudan’s Ministry of Agriculture declared a state of emergency this week after the Nile River rose to record levels.
The Department of Energy said on Wednesday that it is terminating 321 grants supporting 223 projects, cutting a total of more than $7.5 billion in funding for clean energy projects. While the Department has not yet specified what the awards were, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought posted to social media yesterday that the canceled projects were located across 16 Democrat-led states. An administration official told Bloomberg that at least two of the projects in question were hydrogen “hubs” under development in California and the Pacific Northwest. The cuts come on top of $13 billion in climate funds that had not yet been dedicated to specific projects that the Department of Energy said it would “return” in late September, as instructed by the reconciliation bill.
The Department of Energy has left the recipients of billions in obligated funds for climate projects in limbo since Trump took office. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said the agency was “reviewing” the awards in May. He testified in Congress that his office would make a decision about many of them by the end of the summer, but this week’s terminations — amid the government shutdown — are the first announcement the agency has made since an initial batch of cuts at the end of May.
The Trump administration said Wednesday that it is putting $18 billion in funding for New York City transit projects on hold while it investigates violations of a rule barring diversity considerations in hiring that the Department of Transportation published on Tuesday. “The timing is, shall we say, noteworthy,” my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote on Wednesday, “not least because the Democrats’ two top congressional negotiators — Representative Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Chuck Schumer — are both from New York.” In a statement, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy blamed those two lawmakers for the shutdown, lamenting that thanks to them, “USDOT’s review of New York’s unconstitutional practices will take more time.”
Blackrock-owned Global Infrastructure Partners, an investment fund, is in talks to buy energy developer AES for more than $38 billion in “what would be one of the largest infrastructure takeovers of all time,” according to the Financial Times. AES owns utilities in Ohio and Indiana in addition to owning both conventional and renewable energy generation projects across the globe. The company is also the top supplier of renewable energy to corporate buyers in the world. AES stock jumped nearly 17% on Wednesday on the news.
A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists found that residential customers in seven states that are part of the PJM Interconnection, an electricity market that covers the Mid-Atlantic and parts of the Midwest, are paying nearly $4.4 billion for transmission upgrades intended to deliver electricity to data centers. The finding is not a big surprise — PJM’s own Market Monitor has acknowledged that data center load growth is the primary factor driving up rates. But the report specifically analyzes the amount the whole ratebase is shelling out for transmission projects that only benefit a single customer. It recommends that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission create a new customer class for such customers and require them to shoulder the cost alone.
Trump has slashed millions in grants for climate science research and plans to cut the federal government’s climate science funding and staff dramatically in next year’s budget. Stepping in to replace some of that lost cash is Schmidt Sciences, a philanthropy founded by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Schmidt announced Thursday that it’s committing up to $45 million over five years for research to advance understanding of some of the least-studied parts of the global carbon cycle. For example, one project will measure how much carbon dioxide the Southern Ocean absorbs from the atmosphere with the help of robotic sailboats that can collect data year-round, including during times when it’s too dangerous for research ships to operate.
The 2026 Ioniq 5 Limited. Image courtesy of Hyundai
Hyundai is cutting the price tag on its 2026 Ioniq 5 by nearly $10,000, and will continue to offer $7,500 off the 2025 model — equivalent to the now-expired federal tax credit. The 2026 Ioniq 5 base model will start at just $35,000, making it one of the cheapest EVs available in the U.S.
Some of the industry’s biggest names are joining forces to keep the momentum moving forward.
Climate tech funding has slowed in the face of federal government pushback — but it has certainly not stopped. As the administration has cranked up its hostilities against everything from electric vehicles to wind turbines, companies and investors are responding by getting strategic, forming new coalitions to map, fund, and shape progress in the absence of public support.
Last month I covered the launch of the Climate Tech Atlas, an interdisciplinary effort that includes venture capitalists, nonprofits, and academics working to map out the most salient climate tech opportunities and help guide external research and funding in the sector. There’s also the All Aboard Coalition, which unites big name investors to help plug the missing middle finance gap. Sector-specific investment vehicles are popping up too, like the Oneworld BEV fund, a partnership between major airlines in the Oneworld Alliance and Breakthrough Energy Ventures to advance the commercialization of sustainable aviation fuels. All three of these new initiatives were announced in September alone.
“We are in a unique moment right now,” Carmichael Roberts, a managing partner at BEV told me via email. “Over the past decade, the climate tech ecosystem has made enormous progress driving innovation across every sector of the economy. That puts us in the position to step back and ask first, what areas are still crying out for urgent innovation?”
This year has also seen a number of climate tech companies struggle at key points in their attempts to scale. Sodium-ion battery company Natron Energy shut down in September, while direct air capture leader Climeworks laid off 22% of its staff in May, citing “current macroeconomic uncertainty” and “shifting policy priorities where climate tech is seeing reduced momentum.” Another direct air capture company, Noya, shuttered this August, while the battery recycling company Li-Cycle filed for bankruptcy in May.
Other startups pursuing emerging technologies — from carbon capture to long-duration battery storage, advanced geothermal, and next-generation nuclear — are looking to avoid the same fate. But while federal funding from places such as the Department of Energy’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations and the Loan Programs Office once provided an avenue for financing capital-intensive demonstration plants, the Trump administration is now retracting funding, going so far as to cancel contracts with projects previously approved under Biden.
The Oneworld fund, announced in mid-September, is BEV’s first to focus on a specific theme and its first to be backed by an industry coalition. Members of the Oneworld Alliance — which include Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, British Airways, and Cathay Pacific — had already committed to using SAF for 10% of their fuel by 2030, while also “playing an active role in the development of SAF at commercial scale.” Now, with alliance members serving as limited partners in the venture fund, they’ll benefit from the technical and commercial expertise of one of the sector’s most influential VC firms.
When I asked the BEV team to what degree the current political and economic uncertainties were making partnerships like this more valuable, Eric Toone, another BEV managing partner, responded with a refrain I’ve become familiar with — that the firm only backs technologies that “can ultimately compete on their own merits.” Yet it’s undeniable that the federal government tore up its decarbonization agenda at a moment when many climate tech firms’ investments are almost ready for deployment, a stage when government support can make all the difference.
“Many promising SAF technologies already exist, but they are stuck between lab success and commercial scale,” Roberts told me. “This is the moment when they most need capital, technical rigor, and committed offtake to bridge that gap.” While the Trump administration did maintain and extend the tax credit for clean fuels, it also reduced the maximum credit amount for SAF from $1.75 per gallon to $1, while private funding for SAF production and distribution infrastructure remains inadequate.
Given this landscape and the urgency airlines face in meeting their clean fuel targets, Toone told me the firm is open to backing companies “that are further along than what a typical BEV fund might pursue.” And while sustainable fuels are the first technology to benefit from this type of thematic focus, Roberts said that BEV is already eyeing other sectors where it plans to apply this same funding model.
As of early September, the firm is also part of the All Aboard Coalition. This elite group of venture firms is aiming to raise a $300 million fund by the end of October that will match investments in later-stage venture rounds, filling a gap known in climate tech circles as the “missing middle.” Assembled by Chris Anderson, an entrepreneur and primary convener of the TED Talks conference — which has featured many inspiring climate visionaries — the group includes 14 members such as Khosla Ventures, Prelude Ventures, DCVC, Gigascale Capital, and Energy Impact Partners.
“One of the consequences of being in the front row seat at TED all these years is you get persuaded of certain things,” he told me. “And I definitely got persuaded that climate is the outstanding, major problem we really have to fix.”
The bulk of the capital for the coalition will come from outside investors, though some members will contribute as well, Anderson told me. The goal is to incentivize these hotshots to co-invest with each other, providing a one-to-one funding match if they do so.
“First-of-a-kind rounds seem out of reach for a lot of people in the chain,” Anderson explained, referring to the network of investors that must come together to help a company fund expensive new infrastructure. At this stage, its tech has progressed beyond the capital-light, early-stage rounds but is still considered too risky for traditional infrastructure investors to take on. Companies might be seeking $100 million or more from venture firms that are used to writing checks for orders of magnitude less. “Really the purpose of the fund is to create a collective belief that there is a pathway to getting these companies funded. If you have that collective belief, then it’s much easier for a lead investor to step forward and to pull a few other people in.”
Anderson acknowledged that a $300 million fund will not go “nearly far enough.”
“It’s a starter fund. It’s a proof of concept,” he told me. “The world needs to make a couple hundred of these bets at some point.”
Other coalitions, such as the Climate Tech Atlas, are working to steer the sector towards the best bets. This group — which also includes Breakthrough Energy Ventures, alongside others such as the nonprofit investment platform Elemental Impact, the consulting firm McKinsey, and Stanford University’s Doerr School of Sustainability — has mapped out the technological milestones it sees as the clearest pathways to decarbonization. The aim is to help investors, founders, policymakers and academics alike direct their energies towards the most relevant and investable opportunities, regardless of political headwinds.
“The scale at which the government participates in the development of these new technologies — or puts a thumb on the scale for technologies in particular — will vary,” Sonia Aggarwal, CEO of the policy firm Energy Innovation, which is also a member of the alliance, told me. “But certainly that has no real bearing on the fundamental fact that innovators are out there right now thinking about these grand challenges, and there are exciting new ideas for technologies that can get to that commercial scale in the coming years.”
And indeed, sometimes the most promising ideas can take shape in moments of deep uncertainty. Some of the biggest success stories of recent tech history — Uber, Airbnb, WhatsApp, and Square — all got their start during the 2008 financial crisis or its aftermath. “Some of the strongest companies and founders are building in uncertain times,” Dawn Lippert, founder and CEO of Elemental Impact, told me. “That’s very much what we see right now.”
These groups are far from the only private-sector actors coming together to help navigate industry headwinds. When the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew support for the most widely used U.S.-based carbon accounting model for estimating scope 3 emissions, leading emissions accounting platform Watershed partnered with Stanford University’s Sustainable Solutions Lab to launch an initiative that ensures continued access. And recognizing the difficulty that early stage climate tech startups face in securing insurance, the nonprofit GreenRE Coalition and the philanthropic funder Trellis Climate partnered to create a new type of bond tailored to the needs of climate tech startups.
Whether it will all be enough to accelerate or even sustain much-needed momentum in climate tech funding is impossible to predict. But at least the private sector seems to agree that, in this moment, good old teamwork is worth one heck of a try.