We can’t beat robots by becoming better robots. We can only beat them by becoming better humans, and the way to be better humans is by becoming more self-aware.

RIP Climate Tech Two years ago, I passionately declared to my partners that we were witnessing a global shift—an unprecedented imperative to tackle climate change that would transform economies and commerce. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Today, I see the reality more clearly: to succeed, sustainability must be reframed not as an altruistic goal, but as a driver of economic growth. The era of ‘Climate Tech’ is ending. Enter Growth Tech. Like many, I felt climate mitigation and adaptation alongside carbon removal and reduction to hit net-zero would become a priority for businesses, governments, and individuals. The climate disasters we’d already faced and will continue to face will serve as a constant, apolitical reminder of the importance. The US Inflation Reduction Act and Europe’s Net-Zero Industry Act would just be the start of a global trend to invest a real portion of GDP towards tackling this existential threat. The science was indisputable, the deniers were rapidly losing their credibility, and the most compelling founders were beginning to dedicate the next phase of their careers to solving this existential challenge. If I’m honest, there was always a doubt in the back of my mind as to whether individuals, organisations and governments would ever truly follow through with long-term goals to improve the climate for future generations. There certainly was momentum, but investing in carbon reduction is game theory. When no one adapts or invests, the global climate worsens. This harms everyone, but the burden falls unevenly. Not only are the individuals and organisations causing most of the harm also the ones with the most resources to address the crisis, they are the ones that will be least affected in the short term. This results in a sort of asymmetric, multi-player prisoner’s dilemma, where mutual cooperation is the optimal outcome, but individual incentives lead to suboptimal results. When times are good, you could convince yourself that collective action from wealthy, heavy polluters who benefit less than poor, low polluters would happen as long as it created relatively low levels of discomfort. In tougher times, carbon reduction is seen by many, especially in the US, as frivolous bureaucratic bloat. The recent election confirmed this, with the winning candidate declaring against all scientific evidence that climate change is “all a big hoax.” The one global hedge against these self-interested dynamics playing out was the Paris Agreement, which the new administration will pull the US out of for the second time, immediately upon taking office. Sadly, the Paris Agreement was itself nowhere near what we needed to combat the effects of climate change. In any case, the wealthiest and second-most polluting country in the world withdrawing from this agreement will have a lasting impact on the global effort to reduce carbon emissions. And, it has a major impact on Climate Tech companies. Those tracking climate tech over the years have likely already noticed an ominous trend: regulatory pressure for achieving net-zero emissions is evaporating and not just in the US. India’s plan to expand coal-powered steel production will inevitably conflict with their 2070 net-zero target. Australia and France are battling bureaucracy in getting renewable energy projects approved, threatening their targets. In the UK, a debate is emerging challenging the country’s 2050 net-zero target, indicating they may follow suit with the US and withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Similar debates are happening in Germany following the decline of support for the Green Party. China’s 2030 carbon peak and 2060 net-zero goals look more and more far-fetched as they’ve recently doubled-down on coal reliance. The biggest achievement from COP29 was an agreement to compensate developing nations dealing with the effectiveness of climate change, which will primarily go to adaptation projects. Nothing at COP29 of significance was agreed to meaningfully reduce emissions. Without U.S. leadership and enforcement through carbon pricing or tariffs, other nations under economic pressure from their constituents will struggle to justify ambitious net-zero goals. In a world increasingly obsessed with nationalism and competitiveness, few countries will want to risk creating economic headwinds when their peers are sprinting toward growth, unhindered by carbon constraints. As most of us fully appreciate, the severity of the climate crisis hasn’t lessened—it remains an existential threat. Latest projections show us shooting well past 2°C by 2040. At 4-5°C we’ll see civilisation collapse and at 6°C we’ll see the start of human extinction. There will be an untold amount of pain and suffering leading up to these thresholds. The urgency remains, but what’s changed is the prioritisation to address it. So, yes, for the majority of us who believe in climate science, the problem is only growing more acute. Yet, political and economic realities mean the focus is shifting towards growth, and in the near term, we’ll rely on investment in band-aid solutions (aka “climate adaptation”) to patch over the cracks. I’m genuinely not trying to score political points, be defeatist or come across as if I’ve given up hope. It’s tempting to feel sadness, anger, even despair, especially if you studied or lived through the first wave of cleantech investment in the late 2000s, which ended in disappointment for many. But, we don’t have time for that. We must adapt and move forward. And this time, the situation is different. This isn’t the end of technology that helps the climate—but we are at a vital pivot point. A Growth-First Worldview The Clean Tech wave of the 2000s faltered, in part, because the technologies weren’t ready to scale economically. Solar panels were expensive, battery technology wasn’t advanced enough, and renewable energy infrastructure couldn’t compete with fossil fuels on cost or reliability. But today, these technologies have crossed critical thresholds. Solar and wind power are now cheaper than coal and natural gas in many parts of the world. Battery technology has advanced, enabling grid stability and mass adoption of electric vehicles. Despite these advances, we face a sobering reality: a growth-first economic philosophy often undermines long-term sustainability goals. Without a universal carbon tax or aggressive fossil fuel phaseouts, the market’s natural tendency will be to prioritise short-term profit over the planet’s future. This competition-driven phase in global politics is unlikely to prioritise the collective climate action I described. In the absence of regulatory pressure to catalyse a wave of carbon-reducing innovation, the onus falls on us—entrepreneurs, technologists, investors—to create solutions that are not just sustainable, but economically irresistible. AI and machine-learning advancements have the potential to make decarbonization the cheaper, more effective choice, even without top-down mandates. These advancements have the potential to enable entirely new forms of energy and materials that enable economic growth alongside carbon reduction and removal. Betting on Growth Technology, Not Policy I would prefer a universal carbon tax and stricter global commitments to phasing out fossil fuels. If we had the collective strength to stick to it, I believe this would not only solve the climate crisis but also improve productivity and enable unprecedented growth. But wishing for a political reality that doesn’t exist is futile. In fact, it’s irresponsible. We can’t afford to place the future of humanity in the hands of a fickle electorate and shifting geopolitics. Instead, we must focus on harnessing the tools at our disposal and create innovation. This means backing solutions that are value-creating because they’re sustainable making them an economic inevitability. It’s a heavily-cited analog, but the industrial revolution that started in Britain resulted in sustained economic growth for the country and beyond. There was an explosion of innovation leading up to and during the revolution that not only produced phenomenal economic results, but reshaped global commerce. A combination of economic, social, political, and technological factors created the perfect environment for transformative change - but at the end of the day, the transformation endured and reshaped society because of the scale of impact. There was nothing altruistic about it. Like the industrial revolution, this shift will require breakthroughs in technology, reimagined business models, and a relentless focus on scalability. But what will endure is the economic transformation it creates. Someone more creative than I am might coin a catchier term, but the era of “Climate Tech” feels behind us. It relies too heavily on good faith and altruism, framing impact as a moral imperative rather than a driver of competitive advantage. What we need now are companies fundamentally different from those hinging their business cases on speculative ROI tied to carbon tariffs, evolving consumer preferences, or progressive climate policies. Founders and investors who depend on these altruistic assumptions must recalibrate — they’re too disconnected from the hard realities shaping today’s markets. I believe this third wave of sustainability ventures must be seen as Growth Tech. These companies integrate sustainability as a competitive edge — the core reason they succeed where incumbents fail. As climate disasters intensify in frequency and severity, Growth Tech companies will thrive on structural tailwinds, proving that solving environmental challenges isn’t just ethical but economically transformative. For Climate Tech founders, the already monumental challenge of building a successful company has just become even tougher. This is a pivotal moment to pause, regroup, and reframe. To thrive in a growth-first world, your value proposition must solve for growth as the primary driver, embedding sustainability not as the end goal, but as the indispensable means to achieving it. The views expressed here are mine and don’t necessarily represent those of my workplace. This content isn’t investment advice and shouldn’t be taken as an offer to buy or sell any securities.

Some wear suits to awards, but I wear Thalaivar t-shirts 🤘😊 Advance Happy Birthday Thalaivaaa ❤️ #HBDSuperstarRajinikanth #AppStoreAwards