Login
For the last two years, climate tech was on a tear. To be fair, so were a lot of other sectors. But when a slowdown hit tech investing in the middle of last year, climate tech startups bucked the trend and kept racking up the deals.
Now the party might be over, if preliminary data from a new report holds up.
Climate tech deal-making in the first quarter registered $5.7 billion across 279 deals, according to a new PitchBook report. The amount raised was down 36% year over year with 35% fewer deals. That’s certainly suggestive of a correction.
Investors have been keeping a closer eye on their pocketbooks as fears of a recession continue to rumble through the markets. And yet key economic indicators show a striking resilience in the U.S. economy, with strong hiring keeping unemployment low while consumer sentiment remains high. That hasn’t stopped economists and big names on Wall Street from continuing to predict a recession in the coming months. (Certainly not the first time they’ve done that.)
Still, all that noise tends to give investors the jitters. Since no one wants to be left holding the bag, investor sentiment has a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you’re a startup squeezed for cash, you’ve undoubtedly heard from your investors, and it may feel like a recession is already here.
Yet climate tech’s resilience has led some to call it the ultimate “recession proof” investment. Is that still true?
Maybe.
Let’s break it down. For one, these are preliminary figures looking at data through March 31. It’s hard to say how many deals closed in the last few days of the quarter that weren’t picked up by this report. It might be billions!
Climate tech tapped the brakes in Q1. Will the slowdown continue? by Tim De Chant originally published on TechCrunch
Pity Donald Trump. He spent four years in office tearing up trade agreements and ranting about rewriting old ones, all to little avail. Now, a key U.S. climate law is doing more to change the dynamics of international trade than any blustering and bullying ever did.
The Inflation Reduction Act has been hailed as a win for domestic producers of minerals that are critical to electric vehicles and other hallmarks of the decarbonized economy. The most impactful so far have been the provisions that require a minimum amount of domestic sourcing and processing to be eligible for the $7,500 EV tax credit. That language alone has spurred tens of billions of dollars of investment in the U.S. battery supply chain.
But there’s no way the U.S. can produce all that’s needed — the country simply doesn’t have enough reserves, while China has a lock on many parts of the market. So the law also includes a handy loophole qualifying minerals from countries with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement. The law already qualified “North American” suppliers, and the free trade language opens the door further.
Late on Monday, the door opened a little wider as the U.S. and Japan announced a trade deal encompassing cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese and nickel, all minerals that are key components of EV batteries. The agreement opens up both markets to new supplies of the minerals, allowing battery manufacturers and automakers to benefit from the IRA’s minerals requirement.
For now, Japan is the only country to successfully negotiate a new agreement in the wake of the IRA, but it probably won’t be the only one. The EU, which has made no secret about its displeasure with the new law, is also in talks with the U.S.
In the seven months or so since the IRA was passed, the global landscape for critical minerals and battery manufacturing has changed rapidly, and a potentially steady stream of new free trade agreements promises to keep things fluid. For founders and investors alike, that injects a fresh dose of uncertainty.
Why startups should care about geopolitical repercussions of US climate law by Tim De Chant originally published on TechCrunch
One fusion startup is betting that a 70-year-old idea can help it leapfrog the competition, so much so that it’s planning to skip the experimental phase and hook its prototype reactor up to the grid.
The decades-old concept, known as a stellarator, is deceptively simple: design a fusion reactor around the quirks of plasma, the superheated particles that fuse and generate power, rather than force the plasma into an artificial box. Easier said than done, of course. Plasma can be fickle, and designing “box” around the fourth state of matter is fiendishly complex.
That’s probably why stellarators spent years in the fusion-equivalent of the desert while the simpler doughnut-shaped tokamak ate everyone’s lunch, and nearly all of their research funding.
But not all of it. Type One Energy is the brainchild of a handful of physicists steeped in the stellarator world. One built the HSX stellarator at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, two more performed experiments on it, and a fourth worked on the Wendelstein 7-X reactor, the world’s largest stellarator.
Together, they founded Type One in 2019 and nudged forward their approach to fusion at a steady pace. The company wasn’t in stealth — TechCrunch+ identified it as a promising fusion startup last year — but it was operating on a slim budget.
Fusion startup Type One Energy gets $29M seed round to fast-track its reactor designs by Tim De Chant originally published on TechCrunch
One of the main criticisms leveled against ESG investing is that the movement is all talk, no action. The main reason for this is that there simply aren’t enough entrepreneurs providing adequately ESG-aligned investing opportunities. In fact, a third of VCs face difficulties with identifying suitable ESG investment opportunities, even though 97% of them find it important in making investment decisions, driven by the lack of adequate ESG disclosures and excessive costs for gathering and analyzing ESG information.
At the same time, ESG-focused assets under management are projected to increase from $18.4 trillion to $33.9 trillion in the coming years. Whether these figures become reality is increasingly up to entrepreneurs who need to get serious about delivering high-quality ESG data, fast.
There simply aren’t enough entrepreneurs providing adequately ESG-aligned investing opportunities.
Investors have lower levels of confidence in companies that do not collect investment-grade data (shorthand for data that meets high standards of timeliness, accuracy, completeness and auditability), and the majority of investors see unstandardized and poor quality data as their biggest barrier.
Regardless of your market and industry, the best way to get started with delivering investors with high-quality data is to embrace preexisting reporting and disclosure frameworks as early on as possible. There are many frameworks to choose from, including Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), CDP (originally known as the Carbon Disclosure Project) and United Nations Global Compact (UNGC). Although founders may need to carefully consider which framework to prioritize in the beginning, most of the frameworks are complementary in nature and mature firms tend to lean on several of them in their reporting.
For example, the GRI framework examines a company’s influence on the broader economy, environment and society to identify material concerns, while SASB is more tuned to serve the interests of investors who are interested in ESG data that could significantly affect the financial performance of firms in their portfolio. In short, GRI is an ‘inside-out’ framework that examines the company’s impact on the world, while SASB is an ‘outside-in’ framework that looks at the effects of the climate on the company and the risks it faces.
What ends up working best for any given company at any particular time will be down to a number of unique factors, and effective prioritization is key.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) introduced a proposed set of rules concerning mandatory climate disclosures last year. Under the proposed rules, firms who file with the SEC need to disclose a number of data points, including whether climate-related events are likely to push the needle on any of the accounts in its financial statements and what governance structures are in place to mitigate against climate risks. The disclosures envisioned in SEC’s proposal are largely in line with those of the TCFD and Greenhouse Gas Protocol, and if you are gearing up for an IPO, you would do well by ensuring that your ESG data is aligned with these frameworks as a matter of priority.
Investors want best-of-the-best ESG data. Here’s how to give it to them by Jenna Routenberg originally published on TechCrunch
For an ecosystem that covers a majority of the planet, the oceans have basically been ignored by startups and investors alike.
Sure, plenty of money is spent on ocean-based industries, but most of today’s marine investments are into either extractive industries like fishing or oil and gas, or activities like shipping, which aren’t extractive but don’t exactly benefit marine ecosystems.
However, in recent years, there has been a sea change in perspectives. Founders and investors have started to look for opportunities to conserve, and even enhance, the ocean’s resources rather than exploit them.
“There is tremendous potential for the ocean to provide more food, more efficiently, with less environmental impact and even regeneratively,” said Reece Pacheco, a partner at Propeller.
Because the oceans take up so much of the planet and the space is relatively uncharted, there are plenty of opportunities for investors to find niches ripe with financial and environmental upsides.
“Our systems are at a point where it is more productive to work with nature than against it,” said Sanjeev Krishnan, chief investment officer at S2G Ventures. “While energy and agriculture are further along the J-curve, the oceans sector is more nascent but presents an investable opportunity that impacts almost every sector of the global economy.”
In that way, ocean conservation tech mirrors climate tech, which has been growing so fast that some have called it “recession-proof.” Of course, some question whether any sector is truly recession-proof and that applies to ocean conservation tech as well.
That doesn’t mean that investors aren’t bullish, though. “I’m not sure I would characterize the ocean economy as recession-proof, but the investment opportunities are real from a venture capital perspective,” said Tim Agnew, general partner at Bold Ocean Ventures.
Even some of the most intractable and high-profile problems facing the world’s oceans, like plastic pollution, are inspiring investors to dive in.
“People have been looking at solving these problems in the wrong way,” said Daniela Fernandez, managing partner at Seabird Ventures. “Profitability and scalability depend on the approach and business model that is being implemented to solve the plastic pollution crisis. We have to think beyond community beach cleanups — there are actually extremely investable approaches to solving the plastic problem.”
Investors like Fernandez are looking with fresh eyes at both new problems like plastic pollution and old ones like aquaculture and fisheries management. In the process, they’re betting that innovative approaches to solving those problems will not just create returns but create disruptions and innovations that spill over into adjacent sectors.
“Part of our thesis is that ocean conservation technologies can solve big problems for big ocean-going industries and adjacent industries,” said Kate Danaher, managing director at S2G Ventures.
But, she added, there’s still more room to grow. “We need to make the case to even more climate-focused and generalist investors.”
To get a better idea of how startups and investors are thinking about ocean conservation tech and the opportunities therein, we spoke with:
What is your investment thesis for ocean conservation tech in 2023? What sort of growth are you expecting in the sector?
Our investment thesis is focused on innovations that modernize the seafood supply chain, expand production in a sustainable way and address the impacts of climate change. We believe this investment opportunity is in its early stages and will be a major theme over the next decade as it becomes clearer how impactful the ocean can be in addressing the climate crisis and feeding a growing, more urbanized population.
Ocean-related businesses are at the beginning stages of adopting new technologies to increase efficiencies and productivity.
Is there a meaningful distinction between the tech used by startups focused on coastal regions and the tech built for the open ocean?
Answer is yes and no. Ocean shipping and ocean wind are obviously very different animals from kelp aquaculture and climate resiliency, but both are migrating toward more tech-enabled solutions, including digital technologies, artificial intelligence, data gathering and analysis.
A lot of the problems facing the oceans, like plastic pollution, don’t seem to have much potential for profit. Is that a fair assessment, or have we been looking at these problems in the wrong way?
We just looked at a company that has a booming business of gathering plastic bottles on beaches, separating the types of plastic and selling to companies that are anxious to be able to offer recycled bottles or other products.
There is considerable research going into the transition from plastic packaging to biodegradable packaging. There is plenty of potential for profitable businesses, although the process of cleaning up the oceans is going to require time and money.
What technology are you excited about that has the most potential to create new markets?
Seafood traceability solutions; ropeless traps; microalgae and seaweed are a hugely untapped resource with multiple market opportunities; ocean and weather data collection and analysis.
The ocean today only accounts for 15% of the world’s protein and 2% of its calories. What is the potential for the oceans to provide more, and what should that look like?
The oceans will provide more food that has a much lower carbon footprint than land-based animal protein. Shifting demand from beef to seafood could have a major impact on GHG reduction. Seafood aquaculture, both on- and offshore, is growing much faster than wild-caught seafood and will become a major source of high-quality protein.
What are some of the keystone problems that an ocean-based food system faces?
Social license concerns about aquaculture, species sustainability and the need to broaden consumer tastes to reduce pressure on overfishing.
From aquaculture to kelp farming, there is a range of options to get more food from the oceans. Which do you think is the most promising?
RAS and closed system aquaculture.
What is your investment thesis for ocean conservation tech in 2023? What sort of growth are you expecting in the sector?
Peter Bryant: We invest in technologies and business models that enhance the conservation, regeneration and resilience of ecosystems, optimize the production of and use of resources derived from the ocean, and provide consumers with a sustainable, traceable and secure food.
Kate Danaher: Part of our thesis is that ocean conservation technologies can solve big problems for big ocean-going and adjacent industries. Innovations that create deflationary solutions like saving fuel, lowering water usage or can build diverse revenue streams through multiple industries will be best positioned to weather this economic winter, raise capital and gain traction in the market.
As these types of innovations begin to show commercial results and have a positive environmental impact, we expect that investment in the sector will continue to increase, spurring more oceans-focused funds and increased interest from broader climate funds.
What role have impact investors played in ocean conservation? Investor networks?
Bryant: Within ocean conservation, there are technologies and entire subsectors that are still developing and need patient capital for R&D, reaching product-market fit, and in some cases, creating new markets. Patient capital lets commercially viable companies de-risk themselves and provide them with the runway they need to hit milestones to attract more traditional capital.
Impact investors have also catalyzed the growth of the ocean investment landscape by providing the first capital into ocean funds. Before 2018, there were only a handful of ocean-focused funds; however, in the last 18 months, more than 18 ocean-focused funds have been launched.
This is exciting not only because it will lead to hundreds of millions of new dollars invested in the oceans, but also because it demonstrates that venture and growth equity investors have seen the potential of oceans and are willing to set up funds with an oceans focus. Impact investors who are willing to invest early in these funds are playing a pivotal role in attracting the capital needed to grow the investment landscape in oceans.
Is ocean conservation the next climate tech? 7 investors explain why they’re all in by Tim De Chant originally published on TechCrunch
FreshRSS 