USV Climate Fund | Hacker News Reader

USV Climate Fund

usv.com

132 pointstosh37 comments

I think people here underestimate how much money will be made in climate tech in the next decades.

It's literally changing the map of the world, shifting the access (and use) of resources and the livelihood of people worldwide.

Not that i think it's a good thing that this needs to exist but mitigation and adaption to this change will be a huge industry.

100%. The market is fundamentally different than it was the last time "green tech" tried to become a thing. Solar is nearly at price parity with fossil fuels. The space is currently exploding and will transform the world in the next 10-20 years. In many ways it already is (see: Tesla).

That sounds like a lot of money will be spent more than necessarily a lot made?

If one person is spending money, someone else is receiving it.

Not necessarily. Bitcoin is the easiest example but it works to varying extents the same way with any supply and demand product (like currencies as well): if someone discovers an issue with bitcoin, nobody wants to own it anymore. The first person to sell is probably happy, but as soon as buyers catch on, the value has disappeared without anyone receiving another penny. If a publicly traded company is suddenly not expected to make more money, its shares become worthless. Nobody received money proportional to the value loss.

I think you're mostly right in this case since we'll need solutions and we'll pay dearly, but value/wealth/money being lost isn't necessarily coupled to someone else getting rich. If people suddenly can't inhabit certain plots of land anymore, they're not selling it at previous market rates anymore; their value is just lost.

What are some etf/sticks you are following in this category?

(Not asking investment advice)

For wind, take a look at the companies in the FAN ETF. There's a similar one for PV: TAN ETF. Great puns, really.

ICLN and TAN are two popular ones.

But isn't that just a (vast) instance of the "Broken Window" fallacy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

> The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay "Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas" ("That Which We See and That Which We Do Not See") to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.

It would be an example if the parent advocated for breakage. But the historical breakage is vast already. It's still ongoing. Parent is just pointing out that it's going to be a good time for glaziers.

Sure, but the broken window fallacy basically just serves to illustrate that there are opportunity costs when we spend resources on fixing something. The benefits we get from these investments are still real, they're just less than what we might have gotten otherwise.

To put it another way - climate change is sure to be a disaster, but if we get better recycling technology, more efficient cars, pollution-free power generation and other improvements as part of the work of fighting it, that's at least a silver lining.

No.

A lot of the assets that will be replaced (vehicles, power plants, etc.) would have been replaced anyway, because they are or soon will be worn out. That's just business as usual.

The difference is that instead of being replaced with carbon-emitting tech, they will be replaced with modern low emission technology. That's just Schumpeter's gale of creative destruction at work.

Why does that need a separate, dedicated fund? If the time is ripe, shouldn't the opportunities fit within the existing VC paradigm...?

Major tangent, but a product that I can't believe doesn't seem to exist is window fans (not AC units) with passive shutters to prevent air leakage when not in use. I've actually built an exhaust fan in our rental house that somewhat meets these specs.

There are so many old houses that rely on window fans for fresh air or exhaust. The fact that these fans are literally just open fans with all the leakage that entails is quite inefficient.

This seems like a product with the same BOM cost as an existing popular product but with incremental energy benefits and no need for construction.

Doubling down on that: with air filter / swamp cooler options.

When they aren't in use take them out of the window. Problem solved.

Obviously overkill/unneeded overhead, but most window AC units have a 'fan-only' setting that doesn't run the compressor. They aren't entirely sealed when not in use, either, of course. It does seem like it be easy enough to build a box with a fan and some louvers, maybe even a frame to hold an insulated cover on the inside...

On another note, if you're looking for a NGO fund which addresses climate change actions, take a look at the amazing Founder's Pledge climate fund https://founderspledge.com/funds/climate-change-fund

USV jumping on the ESG bandwagon. LPs want/need to deploy capital into ESG, and USV is creating a fund to channel that excess liquidity. They will probably mask climate-related investments, with pure tech investments. Very much replicating what other funds have done, but really not making an impact in this space. Nonetheless, for USV this is more AUMs, more fees. On returns, time will tell.

Yes, this falls in the bucket of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) [1]

Yes, there's a trend of investors seeking to deploy capital towards ESG (thankfully!)

No, this isn't going to gussy up pure-tech with the 'climate' label. I say this as former-USV founder who is now a USV LP. I can also attest to how solid the humans at USV are.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/environmental-social-an...

James, you’ve gotta update your profile :).

Two questions:

Is climate mitigated economic activity as financially efficient as non-mitigated activity?

Is the goal of the fund to maximize return on capital invested, or do their investors tolerate financial risk for the chance to change the world?

There’s money to be made in solving climate problems.

From their site: “ Mitigation is working on the causes of the climate crisis through either emissions reduction or drawdown of existing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Adaptation is working on the consequences of the climate crisis, such as increased risk of crop failure.”

and

“ The USV Climate Fund is a straight-up venture fund. We believe that decarbonizing the economy and dealing with past emissions (and their consequences), offers many opportunities for building important new companies that can produce venture type returns. The transformation of all aspects of the physical world over the coming decades will be on par with the changes brought about by digital technology.”

So they’re betting the problem space is big enough and solutions will be in high demand.

Hello HN! We're SilviaTerra, one of the inaugural companies in the USV Climate Fund.

If this is exciting to you - we're hiring!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25641668

Sort of a tangent, but have you heard of Miyawaki?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Miyawaki#Method_and_cond...

> The Miyawaki method of reconstitution of "indigenous forests by indigenous trees" produces a rich, dense and efficient protective pioneer forest in 20 to 30 years

Isn't this what led Kleiner Perkins down the wrong path and tarnished John Doerr's reputation? He made a killing investing in tech stocks in the 90's and 2000s then decided he wanted to do good for the world and leave a legacy for his kids, and got into climate, clean tech and other 'feel good' stuff. The results were not pretty!

I believe it is best to use one's wealth and earnings to invest in climate stuff outside of a formal fund, with no expectation of outsize returns.

The $1B question is whether or not this cycle of climate tech is different. There's some good reasons to believe it is. Climate change is much more dire and we're starting to actively feel the effects. Consumers and governments are more aware of it and actively want solutions, which means there is real market demand for electric cars, clean energy generation, etc. This all means that, unlike cleantech 1.0, there are real business models for these startups.

While that is ideal, another strategy is to implement government subsidies (or taxes) to privatize the social costs of pollution.

Regrettably, Al Gore's loss in 2000 saw environmental policy fall by the wayside and we are slowly picking up the pieces.

Carbon credits is a good example of this, but it illustrates the pitfalls clearly: if not everyone is subject to the same environmental regulations, those who are will lose their competitive edge.

Maybe. Lots of people lost money in the dot com bust but over the next decade even more was made by the shareholders of various internet companies.

While true in the financial sense - it somewhat depends on if success can only be a binary measurement and the only measure that matters is return to LPs. [1]

If the alternative reality is allowed to be entertained, it is very much possible to say KP was instrumental in laying the groundwork for a clean tech VC ecosystem - jumpstarting VC activity amongst other VCs and supplying a ton of critical social cred to clean teach entrepreneurs/engineers that they were legit and not just tree-hugging pie-in-the-sky dreamers.

Herd mentality and FOMO among other competing VCs following suit likely significantly multiplied the amount of clean tech VC dollars that KP directly allocated and led to many of the successful clean tech companies today.

Also there's a ton of fundamental clean tech R&D that was learned in the areas of energy demand management, solar and battery tech knowledge at the KP funded startups. It was also much more visible what failed so subsequent startups could avoid those hazards. And as engineers at the failed startups dispersed, they could then be picked up by future successful players.

And even though it lost, there's also a ton of social cred in KP putting in a bid for Tesla's Series C. It set a lower bound on Tesla stake for Vantage Point and gave Elon that much more capital at a crucial stage. [2]

[1] https://digital.hbs.edu/platform-rctom/submission/weathering...

[2] https://pando.com/2012/07/17/who-made-the-bigger-mistake-in-...

This is awesome and necessary but don’t get distracted from the real low hanging fruit that is consuming less - less driving, smaller houses, vegetarianism, fewer toys.

Climate change will create the first trillionaire. Sounds like USV is riding the carbon wave.

Elon?

No, inflation and financial inertia will create the first trillionaire. It just so happens that the "oh shit, we really fucked up" climate moment is happening at roughly the same time.

Great to see more funding pouring into this space. Getting capitalism financially aligned with climate action is going to the critical lever. If you'd like to put your money where your mouth is, check out https://enviro.work to find work opportunities related to sustainability. (disclaimer: I'm the founder)

Wonder how this will compare to other funds of the same vintage in a few years.

Very excited about this! Hoping more firms will make this decision

Reply on news.ycombinator.com