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:
VC funding has plummeted so far in 2023. It has also moved to new kinds of startups.

Venture capital investments in climate tech startups have plummeted 40% this year compared with the first half of 2022, according to a report out on Friday from Climate Tech VC, a market intelligence platform that tracks the space.
The trend is in part a reflection of a larger downturn across the broader startup landscape, which one prominent investor predicted earlier this year would lead to a “Mass Extinction Event” that “will make the ‘08 financial crisis look quaint.” Startups in all sectors are struggling to fundraise, thanks to macro conditions like the Federal Reserve raising interest rates to fight inflation and the related collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.
But the picture may not be quite as dire for climate solutions, which saw less of a decline than overall VC funding, which was down more than 50% in the first quarter of the year, compared to 2022, according to Pitchbook. Some areas, like startups working to cut emissions from buildings and heavy industry, are even seeing a boost, likely due to incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act. So far it’s more of a great reshuffling than a Great Recession.
Get one great climate story in your inbox:
“I wouldn't say this is the second coming of clean tech 1.0,” Kim Zou, the co-founder of Climate Tech VC, told me. She was referencing a period in the early 2000s when venture capitalists poured billions into green technology companies and lost more than half of their money. “It's not that all of a sudden, it's a sharp drop off. It's actually that 2021, 2022, one could say that period was a bit of an abnormal peak,” she said.
Helen Lin, a partner at the VC firm At One Ventures, agreed that what’s happening is more of a market correction and a “return to fundamentals” than a calamity. In 2021, as the country was coming out of the worst of the COVID-10 pandemic, there was “a little bit of a bubble forming,” she told me. Lin said company valuations were overly optimistic and investors got a little sloppy, letting go of key metrics for later stage investments like revenue.
“It feels like when you're in one of those kiddie swimming pools and all the kids are thrashing about all at once, and there is all this frothy noise in the water, that's basically how it felt,” she said. “All these kids jumped in the pool because VC looked easy in 2021, there were deals everywhere.”
While overall funding for climate technology startups is down, interest in the sector is clearly not drying up. There was actually an increase in the number of deals made in the first six months of this year compared with last year by about 8%. But most of those deals were at the seed stage, where total funding also grew by 20%. Meanwhile, growth stage funding dropped a significant 64% — twice as high as the drop in growth VC across the economy.

To Zou, that reflects one of the primary challenges with climate technology, which is that companies face a much sharper “valley of death” than in other sectors. Many of the solutions needed are hard technologies that require a lot more capital to get past the proof-of-concept stage. Companies may have to build factories and work out new supply chains, both of which are expensive undertakings.
There’s also been a shift in the types of climate technologies VCs are funding. In 2021, investors made their big bets in electric vehicles and batteries with companies like Rivian and Northvolt raising more than $2 billion each. Now, VCs seem to be less interested in the end-products that directly reduce emissions, like EVs, and more interested in early stage companies that could enable more EVs to get deployed, like those specializing in mining, EV charging optimization, and fleet management.
Lin said that similarly, while enthusiasm for alternative protein companies has cooled slightly after industry leaders Beyond Meat and Impossible reported declining revenues last year, that’s not the full story. There’s still a lot of interest in funding innovative alternative protein startups, but more as a “functional ingredient” to supply to other food companies, rather than as a consumer product.
Investor interest in carbon management startups may also be shuffling around. VC funding in the sector has so far dried up by more than 50% after a big increase last year. Claire Nelson, co-founder of the carbon mineralization startup Cella, which just closed a seed funding round of $3.3 million, told me that investments seem to be shifting from the technologies that capture carbon to the support infrastructure, like carbon transportation and storage. Cella is developing novel injection and monitoring methods for carbon sequestration.

On the flipside, the report notes that startups working to cut emissions from the built environment, like heat pump companies, and from heavy industries, like cement and steel, saw a 7% increase in funding, likely due to new government subsidies in both the E.U. and the U.S. targeting those sectors.
The impact of climate tech funding is more than a financial concern. The International Energy Agency estimates that nearly half of the emissions reductions required to reach net-zero by 2050 will have to come from technologies that aren’t yet commercially available. VC firms don’t just provide the capital for startups to get off the ground, but they also provide a support system for scientists who may have never scaled a business in their lives, said Lin.
“You need people that know how to be the connective tissue between people who speak the language of science, and people who speak the language of scaling up a business in a commercial way,” she told me. “These are all the day-to-day tasks that we work on in a very real way with our portfolio companies.”
Historically, the latter half of the year has been when most VC is deployed, so time will tell if the report truly does reflect a market correction, or foretells a more worrisome trend.
Read more about climate tech:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The deal, shared exclusively with Heatmap, is the startup’s third in the oil-importing country.
Hydrogen fuel comes in myriad forms. There’s green hydrogen, which is extracted from water molecules using zero-carbon electricity. There’s blue hydrogen, derived from methane and scrubbed clean by carbon capture. And then there’s white hydrogen. Otherwise known as natural or geologic hydrogen, this type of hydrogen comes directly from naturally occurring deposits in the earth, can accumulate in considerable quantities and concentrations, and is highly energy-efficient to extract compared to manufacturing pathways such as electrolyzers and steam methane reforming.
It’s a seductive promise, but finding deposits with enough hydrogen to make the economics of exploration work is difficult. That’s where Koloma comes in. The startup uses a bespoke subsurface data set, which its founders developed over 20-plus years, to flag the areas most likely to hold sufficient hydrogen, after which they can extract it for power and derivative fuels.
On Thursday, the startup announced its latest exploration deal, its third in the Philippines, which will give it exclusive rights to a roughly 817-square-mile area in western Zambales Province on the island of Luzon. Altogether, the company now has rights to explore more than 1,600 square miles of the island.
The Philippines until recently imported 98% of its oil from the Middle East. Since the onset of the U.S. and Israel-led war in Iran and the subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the country’s responses have included declaring an energy emergency, imposing a four-day workweek, tripling solar panel imports from China, and even planning to dust off the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, which has sat idle since 1986.
The country also sits between three active tectonic plates, which means it has a lot of young iron-rich rock formations exposed to water — exactly the conditions that continuously produce natural hydrogen.
“The Philippines is like the poster child of that,” Pete Johnson, Koloma’s CEO, told me. “The geology is very, very good.” Accordingly, the prospect of a plentiful, easy-to-tap domestic energy source has gotten Philippine policymakers excited. The government collects data on natural leaks of hydrogen from the ground to help companies like Koloma narrow their search.
In theory, once a viable deposit is discovered, extraction is straightforward. “If you drill a hole into that pressurized reservoir, the gas is going to flow by itself. It’s just like poking a hole in a balloon,” Johnson told me. Where electrolyzers need around 55 megawatt-hours of energy to produce a ton of hydrogen and gas-powered reformers need around 40 megawatt-hours, natural hydrogen extraction would take 3 megawatt-hours maximum, according to the CEO. And unlike some methods to artificially stimulate the formation of hydrogen deposits, which my colleague Katie Brigham wrote about last week, tapping into natural wells doesn’t require injecting high-pressure fluids, which keeps the structural integrity of the subsurface intact.
Koloma has no hard agreement with the Philippine government to earmark any of the hydrogen it may produce there for domestic consumption, Johnson told me. But given the difficulty of transporting the lightweight gas and the projected growth of the Philippine economy, he expects the country would be the overwhelming beneficiary of Koloma’s activities there.
Once it’s extracted, Koloma could sell the hydrogen as a primary resource (major population and industrial centers like Manila are close to exploration sites) or as a feedstock for products like ammonia and sustainable aviation fuel, which local manufacturers could then export. There may also be opportunities to sequester captured CO2, which easily bonds with the types of rock often found in natural hydrogen deposits and can in turn make the rock more reactive for hydrogen generation.
Hydrogen has figured heavily in the decarbonization and energy security plans of import-dependent East and Southeast Asian economies for a long time. As Katie explained earlier this year, it’s also a centerpiece of China’s latest five-year plan. Japan, meanwhile, has been a leader since the industry’s inception, rolling out the world’s first hydrogen strategy in 2017. The Philippines’ partnership with Koloma is a bet that there are enough hydrogen balloons under its land to put its energy plans on the same trajectory.
France’s deadliest heat wave since 2003 killed more than 2,700 people — and possibly as many as 5,700.
More than 5,700 excess deaths were recorded in France during this summer’s record-breaking heat wave, the country’s health agency announced today. That makes the event — which ran, by the official reckoning, from June 17 to July 2 — the country’s deadliest heat wave in more than 20 years.
That’s in line with other estimates we’ve heard. EuroMOMO, a network of European public health agencies that track excess mortality, found that the continent saw more than 10,000 excess deaths during the same period. Roughly 90% of those victims were older than 65, it said. (France’s cohort seems similar: Adults older than 75 made up about two-thirds of the victims, the government said.)
These numbers are staggering — and much larger than some astute Heatmap readers might anticipate. If you read my colleague Jeva Lange’s piece on why it’s so hard to estimate heat deaths last week, she cited a much smaller estimate: Roughly 2,700 died in France during the most recent heat wave. That tally came from Christopher Callahan, an Indiana University scientist who studies climate change’s economic and social costs.
Why is there such a gap between the figures? I emailed Callahan to find out. He shared a few thoughts. First, he uses a different (and theoretically more rigorous) method than the French government: “Our approach uses a statistical relationship between temperature and mortality to explicitly quantify how many additional deaths are associated with a given day’s temperature,” he wrote. “France’s report of excess deaths is just based on how many more people died in late June compared to previous Junes - but we don’t know if those people died because of the heat or some other factor.” (Carbon Brief recently published a Q&A on these varying approaches.)
That might mean his estimate is right, in which case France has misidentified roughly nearly 3,000 deaths. But it could also mean his model, which is trained on data from 2004 to 2019, is “missing something,” he said, like a post-Covid change to public health risk. Last year, Callahan and his colleagues used a similar model to estimate deaths from France’s worst-ever heatwave, a 2003 episode that overwhelmed morgues and killed about 16,000 people. Even 23 years ago, global warming helped make that disaster larger than it needed to be: Some 6,000 of those deaths were due to climate change, their paper found.
Either estimate of the 2026 heat wave, of course, is shattering. As Jeva wrote, even the lower figure would mean the 2026 heat wave killed as many people as died in three years of French homicides. But the divergence in estimates tells us something else too: Even as climate change breaks records and alters our world, we’re never going to quite agree on where it ends and normal randomness begins.
The AI data center boom does not seem close to ending. Google’s parent company, Alphabet, announced its second quarter results this evening, and it beat Wall Street’s expectations, nearly quadrupling its profit on a year-over-year basis. Among the drivers: Its cloud business grew 82% compared to the same quarter last year. (As I’ve written, that rapid growth is helping to turn Alphabet and other hyperscalers into light industrial firms.)
The company’s AI bets seem to be paying off so far — so Google is now planning on spending even more on data centers, energy infrastructure and AI development this year than it once anticipated. It raised its estimates of 2026 capital expenditure to $195 billion to $205 billion, which is above earlier projections and twice as much as it spent in the same category last year. 2027 could be even bigger, it signaled. The company’s shares fell slightly on the news in after-hours trading, but from an energy and climate wonk perspective, the message is clear: For now, the AI demand surge transforming the power sector — and the real economy — continues to chug along.