#97: Dr. Evil and the time value of impact
6 bullets on climate tech, better habits, and deep work
Good morning, folks.
In today’s 3-minute read, I’ll cover these 6 juicy nuggets below — as rewarding as relaxing in a hot spring resort in the Japanese Alps that is somehow only accessible by a 2-day hike or helicopter. 🤔
Climate Startups & Investment
#1 — ☁️ 28,000 peer-reviewed studies on CDR.
#2 — 💯 ESG is, like, so easy, dude…
#3 — 💻 Dear climate tech VC, is your focus on software wrong?
#4 — ⏲️ The time value of impact.
Productivity & Living the Good Life
#5 — ⛔ Just say no.
#6 — 😞 Hug me.
Onward and upward,
Chris
#1 — ☁️ 28,000 peer-reviewed studies on CDR.
A new report on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) led by the University of Oxford shows that…
“Averaging across [all IPCC] scenarios, novel CDR [from direct air capture, enhanced rock weathering, etc.] [needs to] increase by a factor of 30x by 2030 (and up to about 540x in some scenarios) and by a factor of 1,300x (up to about 4,900x in some scenarios) by mid-century.
Yet no country so far has pledged to scale novel CDR by 2030 as part of their Nationally Determined Contribution…”
Almost all IPPC models showing how we meet our climate goals include the need for CDR.
So this is not an “either/or” choice — i.e., reduce new GHG emissions, or do CDR.
It’s a “both/right f’ing now” choice.
(That “f” stands for “freakin’” in our house. Get your head out of the gutter.)
And as a refresher, carbon removal (from the atmosphere) is not the same as carbon capture (from a smokestack).
What might CDR growth look like in the decades to come?
“Twenty years ago, renewable energy was a niche sector. Today, the picture is radically different.
This rapid development was enabled in part by concerted efforts to build institutions and communities for gathering and sharing information.
CDR is at the start of a similar journey.”
In other words, a big arse market that could reach $1 trillion in 2050.
Important note:
Make sure to imagine your best Dr. Evil voice from the Austin Powers movie when you read that line above. Or watch this 1-minute version. Pure joy.
#2 — 💯 ESG is, like, so easy, dude…
…if you can tell me the key differentiator of every organization on the market map below.
(Note: I teach ESG Investing at Duke University. And I definitely can NOT.)
If you want to understand the skills needed for your ESG hire, consider these links:
“Sustainable Investing, The Ultimate In Trying To Hire People Who Don't Exist Yet” - from Neil Farrell
“Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Factors and Green Productivity: The Impacts of Greenwashing and Competence Greenwashing on Sustainable Finance and ESG Investing” - from Dr. Kim Schumacher
Thanks to Graham Sinclair for making me aware of this.
#3 — 💻 Dear climate tech VC, is your focus on software wrong?
Software is nothing without hardware, right?
“The problem for software-focused investors in the climate solutions sector is that most of the actual solutions, at the end of the day, are 100% tied to actual physical assets.
Even ‘climate app’ platforms like car share businesses, smart metering, commuting optimization, or trading environmental commodities (e.g., carbon credits) are all tied to the physical world one way or another, and cannot scale without hardware innovations like electric vehicles, metering hardware, and carbon-saving projects being deployed at scale."
But wait, are deep tech investors also flawed?
“Okay, quick question: Name the last successful hardware innovation in climate tech that resulted in a great venture exit without having any embedded software as a crucial part of its success.
Hardware VCs in climate tech need to be making sure that their deep tech innovators are thinking early about the software side [not as an afterthought as it if were a commodity]…and in fact looking for ways to turn that into a competitive advantage and leverage point for accelerated adoption.”
Read more from Rob Day at Spring Lane Capital in Forbes.
#4 — ⏲️ The time value of impact.
No, that’s not a typo.
I didn’t mean to write — “The time value of money.”
We all know that money today is better than money received X years from now.
Think of inflation, uncertainty, Armageddon, etc.
Climate action today matters more than the same action in 20 years, whether that be GHG emissions reduced, carbon removed from the atmosphere, or wildlife habitat preserved.
2050 goals are great, like a local sushi restaurant in the U.S. with 4.1 out of 5 stars.
But 2023 goals are better, like the best sushi restaurant in Tokyo, only known by locals.
(That is, one is good, but the other is much better!)
Read more from Amit Bouri, head of the Global Impact Investing Network, in the Financial Times.
#5 — ⛔ Just say no.
We’re all busier than we should be.
And just because we *can* doesn’t mean we *should*.
So, in the wisdom of my friend Allison Myers, General Partner at Buoyant Ventures:
“Save your F*cks for Magical Sh*t.”
#6 — 😞 Hug me.
No words are needed here.
Just watch this 34-second video. Millions of other viewers thought it was worth seeing.
The humanity is refreshing.
That’s all, y’all.
Make it a great week, because it’s usually a choice.
Cheers,
Chris
—
Chris Wedding
Founder @ Entrepreneurs for Impact
Climate Masterminds — The only peer group community in North America for growth-stage startup CEOs & investors fighting climate change. Our members represent more than $8B in market value or capital managed.
Podcast — 100+ interviews with CEOs and VC investors discussing climate tech, better habits, and life lessons.
Can readily appreciate point 4, the time value of impact, when it comes to the timing of GHG emissions reductions and even removal.
Just wondering if there might be a clearer metaphor one might substitute for this? "2050 goals are great, like a local sushi restaurant in the U.S. with 4.1 out of 5 stars. But 2023 goals are better, like the best sushi restaurant in Tokyo, only known by locals." Maybe it's just me, maybe even likely so, but this was a head-scratcher.