Courtesy BoxPower By Tim McDonnell THE SCENE Where Angelo Campus grew up in northern California, evacuations and power outages caused by wildfires were routine. At college, he worked in a lab developing small solar-powered electric grids for places hit by natural disasters or high fire-risk areas to reduce the odds of an errant spark from a conventional transmission line. After graduation, he founded a startup called BoxPower to commercialize the technology, setting up his first system in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria in 2017. As the frequency and severity of wildfires in his home state escalated, interest grew in his microgrids. But raising investment proved challenging: Backers gravitated to companies seeking to ward off climate change, not those readying the world for its impact. “The number of ‘no’s we got from climate investors was surprising and pretty disappointing,” Campus said. BoxPower eventually found backers and has installed dozens of microgrids. But in a summer where climate disasters have dominated the headlines — most recently devastating wildfires in Hawaii, Greece, and Canada — adaptation startups continue to get a cold shoulder from many venture investors. TIM’S VIEW This year’s onslaught of disasters should make the investment case for climate adaptation tech more obvious, and fuel innovation in the use of artificial intelligence and other cutting-edge technologies for confronting the unavoidable impacts of climate change. On average, 97% of global climate-tech venture capital investment annually (about $50 billion in 2022) goes toward startups whose products or services reduce greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly in the electric mobility and renewable energy sectors, according to consulting firm PwC. Just 1% goes to ventures that focus on adaptation — technologies to mitigate or respond to natural disasters and other climate impacts (the remaining 2% is for carbon accounting and other climate-related data-management businesses). “There is a clear innovation and funding gap, with adaptation solutions still perceived to lack an investable business case for many innovation investors,” Will Jackson-Moore, PwC’s global ESG leader, said in an email. The gap dates back to the early days of climate tech, said Shaun Abrahamson, managing partner at Los Angeles VC firm Third Sphere. At that time, most investors saw climate change as a distant problem, with little urgency for adaptation. Of the few adaptation startups that did get funded, many failed, he said, because they struggled to find a sufficient base of customers among municipal governments, fire departments, and other public-sector agencies that were most often tasked with disaster response. That’s changing. One example is Convection Capital, a San Francisco VC firm that launched in September last year with $35 million to invest exclusively in wildfire mitigation tech. Its portfolio includes startups deploying autonomous firefighting helicopters, using satellite imagery to guide preventative forest management, and offering homeowners insurance in vulnerable areas based on AI-driven risk modeling. “The new normal of wildfires has crept up pretty quickly for the timescales VCs work on,” Anukool Lakhina, a partner, said. But as more disasters strike, he anticipates a rapid increase in the number of startups inventing climate adaptation solutions for organizations desperate to implement them. Investors will emerge, he said, as they see the profit opportunity in linking the two. — For more, including The View From Nairobi and Room for Disagreement, click here. |