Is Climate VC Dead?

53 conversations with climate VCs in 2026. Only one question was top of mind: is climate VC dead?

Short answer: no, but the version that existed 3 years ago might be.

Different funds. Different strategies. Same problem.

Modern venture capital was built for software. Climate isn't software.

Midjourney reached a $10B+ valuation with 11 people. Try doing that with a geothermal plant. Software scales with code. Climate scales with permits, steel, and grid interconnection.

Many companies stuck right now aren't failing on technology. They're failing on capital fit. Too unproven for debt. Too capital heavy for equity. Strong teams. Proven tech. No path to deployment capital.

Pick your metaphor: "Valley of Death" or "Missing Middle," I heard them both in almost every conversation.

The investors I found most compelling aren't complaining. They are building around it.

• The All Aboard Fund. Over a dozen climate VCs, a $300M joint fund, and a co-investment trigger. Three firms independently invest, and the fund matches. This pushes a company from "interesting" to "investable" for institutional capital.
• Capital as a toolkit, not a category. One platform I spoke with uses grants, catalytic capital, and market-rate investments all toward the same goal. The idea is simple: match the capital to the stage, not the other way around.
• Fifteen-year structures with heavy follow-on reserves. Patience is the strategy: invest early, follow as the risk drops, expand ownership later. Shorter funds exit before the value shows up. Patient funds are still at the table, growing their stake.

Others are solving it from the other direction: investing in the software and AI that make deployment faster, cheaper, and smarter.

I came into these conversations focused on technology. I left focused on systems.

Can this actually get financed, permitted, built, and scaled?

View original on LinkedIn →