 |
|
|
|||||
For the third consecutive year, venture capital investment in climate tech fell in 2024. Investment in the sector reached only $37.8 billion, nearly 40% lower than its all-time high in 2021. Looking ahead to 2025, a report from PitchBook suggests climate tech investments could fall even further. The broad scope of climate tech means the companies focused on it are subject to policy and industry changes impacting many sectors, such as energy, agriculture, and transportation. However, even as tariffs and shifting policy priorities threaten companies bottom line, many venture investors in the space say there is no cause for alarm. This isn’t surprising to us, says Sara Simonds, executive director of Venture Climate Alliance, an organization that brings together climate-focused venture capital firms. Many of the VCs that we work with have been investing in these sectors for the better part of a decade or longer and are accustomed to the ebbs and flows in industry outlook. The last surge of investment started in 2021, when the market for renewable energy and other climate technologies looked very different. Favorable policies under President Joe Biden bolstered the sector and made it a hotbed of activity even for venture capitalists who werent previously involved in the space. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, for example, invested billions in clean energy, electric vehicles, and other climate-friendly technologies. That act built on tax credits for electric vehicles, carbon sequestration, and other initiatives provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed by Congress in 2021. On the venture capitalist side, those policies led to expensive deals that pushed the annual VC deal value over $60.5 billion in 2021 and $53.8 billion in 2022, according to the PitchBook report. Now some climate-favorable policies and tax breaks are gone under President Donald Trump, and tariffs are raising the cost of clean energy in the U.S. (China remains the leading supplier of solar panels, wind turbine components, and lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles, according to the International Energy Agency.) Many tourist investors who temporarily entered the climate space during its period of high growth have taken these changes as a sign to scale back investments or leave the space. This, combined with declines in the number of VC deals in the tech sector more broadly, has added to climate techs troubles. However, venture capitalists who specialize in climate tech investments arent worried. In fact, they see opportunities for growth that may outweigh the financial risks these policy and market changes bring. Part of their confidence in the sector comes from having experienced past boom-bust cycles in climate technology markets. The CleanTech 1.0 eraa period in the mid-2000s when venture capitalists heavily staked renewable energy startups that ultimately failedwas a formative experience for many of todays climate tech investors. They observed not only how these businesses failed but also how others succeeded in their wake as the need for climate-friendly solutions grows. Climate change is the macro of all macro trends, says Andrew Beebe, managing director at Obvious Ventures. Maybe not as a human, but as an investor, the macro on climate is amazing. The challenge becomes greater by the day and that means the opportunities just become greater by the day. Additionally, many of the changes on the policy side have greater impacts on mature industries that venture capitalists are less directly involved in, says Matt Eggers, managing director at Prelude Ventures. Venture capitalists tend to invest in startups and other early-stage companies with potential to grow. While there is always innovation going on behind the scenes of mature industries, some that are well-established (like traditional solar and wind technologies) are less appealing to investors looking for groundbreaking new technologies or unexplored areas of industries. What many dedicated climate tech investors are looking for remains the same as when the sector hit its peak three years agonew or improved technologies that are scalable and have strong market potential. Last year, North America remained the largest market for climate tech investment, and it saw big gains in the energy sector, according to the PitchBook report. In particular, growth was notable in dispatchable energy sources whose output is easily increased or decreased to meet demand, and in infrastructure to produce, store, and transport hydrogen. Similarly, the first quarter of this year saw more investments in energy, with large fusion and nuclear deals. Weve got technology that were really excited about in the portfolio, Eggers says. He and Beebe both see opportunities in companies using electrification and artificial intelligence to transform the climate tech sector. Beyond the technology, Eggers adds that investors look for companies with strong leadership teams and ideas that appeal to big or fast-growing markets, particularly those that have been disrupted by the types of policy and economic changes plaguing many industries today. When theres disruption, theres opportunity, Eggers says. This extends to the investment space as well, where investors are finding promising companies to fund in this now less-crowded area of the venture market.
Category:
E-Commerce
Every few years, the tires on your car wear thin and need to be replaced. But where does that lost tire material go? The answer, unfortunately, is often waterways, where the tiny microplastic particles from the tires synthetic rubber carry several chemicals that can transfer into fish, crabs, and perhaps even the people who eat them. We are analytical and environmental chemists who are studying ways to remove those microplasticsand the toxic chemicals they carrybefore they reach waterways and the aquatic organisms that live there. Microplastics, macro-problem Millions of metric tons of plastic waste enter the worlds oceans every year. In recent times, tire wear particles (TWPs) have been found to account for about 45% of all microplastics in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Tires shed tiny microplastics as they move over roadways. Rain washes those TWPs into ditches, where they flow into streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans. Along the way, fish, crabs, oysters, and other aquatic life often find these TWPs in their food. With each bite, the fish also consume extremely toxic chemicals that can affect both the fish themselves and whatever creatures eat them. Some fish species, like rainbow trout, brook trout, and coho salmon, are dying from toxic chemicals linked to TWPs. Researchers in 2020 found that more than half of the coho salmon returning to streams in Washington state died before spawning, largely because of 6PPD-Q, a chemical stemming from 6PPD, which is added to tires to help keep them from degrading. But the effects of tire wear particles arent just on aquatic organisms. Humans and animals alike may be exposed to airborne TWPs, especially people and animals who live near major roadways. In a study in China, the same chemical, 6PPD-Q, was also found in the urine of children and adults. While the effects of this chemical on the human body are still being studied, recent research shows that exposure to this chemical could harm multiple human organs, including the liver, lungs, and kidneys. In Oxford, Mississippi, we identified more than 30,000 TWPs in 24 liters of stormwater runoff from roads and parking lots after two rainstorms. In heavy traffic areas, we believe the concentrations could be much higher. The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, a states-led coalition, in 2023 recommended identifying and deploying alternatives to 6PPD in tires to reduce 6PPD-Q in the environment. But tire manufacturers say theres no suitable replacement yet. What can communities do to reduce harm? At the University of Mississippi, we are experimenting with sustainable ways of removing TWPs from waterways with accessible and low-cost natural materials from agricultural waste. The idea is simple: Capture the tire wear particles before they reach the streams, rivers, and oceans. In a recent study, we tested pine wood chips and biochara form or charcoal made from heating rice husks in a limited oxygen chamber, a process known as pyrolysisand found they could remove approximately 90% of TWPs from water runoff at our test sites in Oxford. Biochar is an established material for removing contaminants from water due to its large surface area and pores, abundant chemical binding groups, high stability, strong adsorption capacity, and low cost. Wood chips, because of their rich composition of natural organic compounds, have also been shown to remove contaminants. Other scientists have also used sand to filter out microplastics, but its removal rate was low compared with biochar. We designed a biofiltration system using biochar and wood chips in a filter sock and placed it at the mouth of a drainage outlet. Then we collected stormwater runoff samples and measured the TWPs before and after the biofilters were in place during two storms over the span of two months. The concentration of TWPs was found to be significantly lower after the biofilter was in place. The unique elongated and jagged features of tire wear particles make it easy for them to get trapped or entangled in the pores of these materials during a storm event. Even the smallest TWPs were trapped in the intricate network of these materials. Using biomass filters in the future We believe this approach holds strong potential for scalability to mitigate TWP pollution and other contaminants during rainstorms. Since biochar and wood chips can be generated from agricultural waste, they are relatively inexpensive and readily available to local communities. Long-term monitoring studies will be needed, especially in heavy traffic environments, to fully determine the effectiveness and scalability of the approach. The source of the filtering material is also important. There have been some concerns about whether raw farm waste that has not undergone pyrolysis could release organic pollutants. Like most filters, the biofilters would need to be replaced over timewith used filters disposed of properlysince the contaminants build up and the filters degrade. Plastic waste is harming the environment, the food people eat, and potentially human health. We believe biofilters made from plant waste could be an effective and relatively inexpensive, environmentally friendly solution. Boluwatife S. Olubusoye is a PhD candidate in chemistry at the University of Mississippi. James V Cizdziel is a professor of chemistry at the University of Mississippi. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
India is on the moon, S. Somanath, chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization, announced in August 2023. The announcement meant India had joined the short list of countries to have visited the moon, and the applause and shouts of joy that followed signified that this achievement wasnt just a scientific one, but a cultural one. Over the past decade, many countries have established new space programs, including multiple African nations. India and Israelnations that were not technical contributors to the space race in the 1960s and 70shave attempted landings on the lunar surface. With more countries joining the evolving space economy, many of our colleagues in space strategy, policy ethics, and law have celebrated the democratization of space: the hope that space is now more accessible for diverse participants. We are a team of researchers based across four countries with expertise in space policy and law, ethics, geography, and anthropology who have written about the difficulties and importance of inclusion in space. Major players like the U.S., the European Union, and China may once have dominated space and seen it as a place to try out new commercial and military ventures. Emerging new players in space, like other countries, commercial interests, and nongovernmental organizations, may have other goals and rationales. Unexpected new initiatives from these newcomers could shift perceptions of space from something to dominate and possess to something more inclusive, equitable, and democratic. We address these emerging and historical tensions in a paper published in May 2025 in the journal Nature, in which we describe the difficulties and importance of including nontraditional actors and Indigenous peoples in the space industry. Continuing inequalities among space players Not all countries space agencies are equal. Newer agencies often dont have the same resources behind them that large, established players do. The U.S. and Chinese programs receive much more funding than those of any other country. Because they are most frequently sending up satellites and proposing new ideas puts them in the position to establish conventions for satellite systems, landing sites, and resource extraction that everyone else may have to follow. Sometimes, countries may have operated on the assumption that owning a satellite would give them the appearance of soft or hard geopolitical power as a space nation, and ultimately gain relevance. In reality, student groups of today can develop small satellites, called CubeSats, autonomously, and recent scholarship has concluded that even successful space missions may negatively affect the international relationships between some countries and their partners. The respect a country expects to receive may not materialize, and the costs to keep up can outstrip gains in potential prestige. Environmental protection and Indigenous perspectives Usually, building the infrastructure necessary to test and launch rockets requires a remote area with established roads. In many cases, companies and space agencies have placed these facilities on lands where Indigenous peoples have strong claims, which can lead to land disputes, like in western Australia. Many of these sites have already been subject to human-made changes, through mining and resource extraction in the past. Many sites have been ground zero for tensions with Indigenous peoples over land use. Within these contested spaces, disputes are rife. Because of these tensions around land use, it is important to include Indigenous claims and perspectives. Doing so can help make sure that the goal of protecting the environments of outer space and Earth are not cast aside while building space infrastructure here on Earth. Some efforts are driving this more inclusive approach to engagement in space, including initiatives like Dark and Quiet Skies, a movement that works to ensure that people can stargaze and engage with the stars without noise or sound pollution. This movement and other inclusive approaches operate on the principle of reciprocity: that more players getting involved with space can benefit all. Researchers have recognized similar dynamics within the larger space industry. Some scholars have come to the conclusion that even though the space industry is pay to play, commitments to reciprocity can help ensure that players in space exploration who may not have the financial or infrastructural means to support individual efforts can still access broader structures of support. The downside of more players entering space is that this expansion can make protecting the environmentboth on Earth and beyondeven harder. The more players there are, at both private and international levels, the more difficult sustainable space exploration could become. Even with good will and the best of intentions, it would be difficult to enforce uniform standards for the exploration and use of space resources that would protect the lunar surface, Mars, and beyond. It may also grow harder to police the launch of satellites and dedicated constellations. Limiting the number of satellites could prevent space junk, protect the satellites already in orbit, and allow everyone to have a clear view of the night sky. However, this would have to compete with efforts to expand internet access to all. What is space exploration for? Before tackling these issues, we find it useful to think about the larger goal of space exploration, and what the different approaches are. One approach would be the fast and inclusive democratization of space, making it easier for more players to join in. Another would be a more conservative and slower big player approach, which would restrict who can go to space. The conservative approach is liable to leave developing nations and Indigenous peoples firmly on the outside of a key process shaping humanitys shared future. But a faster and more inclusive approach to space would not be easy to run. More serious players means it would be harder to come to an agreement about regulations, as well as the larger goals for human expansion into space. Narratives around emerging technologies, such as those required for space exploration, can change over time, as people begin to see them in action. Technology that we take for granted today was once viewed as futuristic or fantastical, and sometimes with suspicion. For example, at the end of the 1940s, George Orwell imagined a world in which totalitarian systems used tele-screens and videoconferencing to control the masses. Earlier in the same decade, Thomas J. Watson, then president of IBM, notoriously predicted that there would be a global market for about five computers. We as humans often fear or mistrust future technologies. However, not all technological shifts are detrimental, and some technological changes can have clear benefits. In the future, robots may perform tasks too dangerous, too difficult, or too dull and repetitive for humans. Biotechnology may make life healthier. Artificial intelligence can sift through vast amounts of data and turn it into reliable guesswork. Researchers can also see genuine downsides to each of these technologies. Space exploration is harder to squeeze into one streamlined narrative about the anticipated benefits. The process is just too big and too transformative. To return to the question of whether we should go to space, our team argues that it is not a question of whether or not we should go, but rather a question of why we do it, who benefits from space exploration, and how we can democratize access to broader segments of society. Including a diversity of opinions and viewpoints can help find productive ways forward. Ultimately, it is not necessary for everyone to land on one single narrative about the value of space exploration. Even our team of four researchers doesnt share a single set of beliefs about its value. But bringing more nations, tribes, and companies into discussions around its potential value can help create collaborative and worthwhile goals at an international scale. Timiebi Aganaba is an assistant professor of space and society at Arizona State University. Adam Fish is an associate professor at the School of Arts and Media at UNSW Sydney. Deondre Smiles is an assistant professor of geography at the University of Victoria. Tony Milligan is a research fellow in the philosophy of ethics at King’s College London. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||