Ep #1 Does Climate Tech Need a Rebrand? Insights with Helena Wasserman.

Welcome to Method, where we decode what it really takes to build and scale startups. I'm Andy Walsh, founder and strategist. Each week we'll bring you actionable insights and real stories. Let's dive in. Hello and welcome to today's episode. Today we're lucky to have Helena Wasserman with us here. I'm excited about this because I'm a big advocate for climate tech. I'm not the expert like Helena is, but we'll dig into that in today's episode. Helena, welcome. I'm so glad to have you here.

Andy. Very excited to chat with you today and talk about climate 100%.

So you've got quite a diverse background and you've been a founder for Investors for Climate. You're an investor yourself and also a solutionist, which I love as a term. So I'd love to hear from you as far as what you've been up to recently and your background.

Absolutely. So, yeah, quick two minute intro about myself. I'm half Swiss, half Italian, I live in New York City. Started my career at the Clinton foundation in New York, actually. Was always very passionate about impact and social issues and also worked for techstars, the accelerator that got me pretty excited about, you know, building companies from scratch to be able to fix the climate crisis. And more recently, I decided to bring these passions together and we launched Investors for Climate. So we launched that a year and a half ago. We're a network now of 400 climate investors, mix of family offices, VCs, angels, and we operate as a network. We recently launched our investment syndicate, so we are starting to invest as a network. We also have a founder program where we support founders with fundraising. All climate founders, obviously. And yeah, super excited about just moving capital into climate. So that's how we measure success as an organization.

Yeah. Amazing. And in our previous conversations, we've talked about a few things and one of the things that stood out for me is the amount of money that you've helped raise. And from memory it's over $40 million.

Yes, exactly. So the founders in our program and through our company, we helped raise 40 million to date.

Amazing. That's huge. And my impression and instincts are that we're going to see a shift as far as capital that's deployed compared to 2024, but also an increase in climate tech as people start to take what's happening in the world now more seriously, which is obviously important. And we'll go into that a little bit more. As far as today's topic, the big question that I want to be able to unpack a little. Here is around does climate tech need a rebrand? And the rebrand part for me is not obviously. Aesthetically, it's perception, right? It's what actually goes behind an investment team, person, fund decision into what they invest into and what they don't, and some of the barriers around that. So, kicking off, I'd love your read. As far as your experience, whether it's the last year or in the last few years, what are some of the things that you see as themes about people either investing or even not investing in climate tech?

So you know that just to give a bit of context, that conversation about does climate tech need a rebrand? Was started when Trump got elected. And so because of the Trump presidency, you know, there's going to be a shift in policies. You're probably going to get out of the Paris Agreement again, the Inflation Reduction act will be shifted, et cetera. So what this means is that climate type will purely be driven by private investors as opposed to, you know, policies, particularly in the US and so then the conversation that started was like, okay, if that's the case, then should we stop talking about climate? To give you a bit of context, out of all the venture capital funding in the world globally right now, 12% of that goes to climate tech. Just to give you a bit of a number in context. And so since last year, the amount of money that went to climate tech went down by 20%. This is quite similar to what you're seeing in tech as well. So basically the conversations that were taking place is, you know, a lot of investors in the community now in investors for climate as well, are saying, you know, maybe you should not talk about green, you know, not talk about climate change, not talk about reducing carbon emissions or, you know, doing the right thing. Instead, you should talk more about, you know, superior unit economics, the road to profitability, less dependency on China for critical minerals, for example. So my point with that is just instead of talking about climate tech, is rebranding to talk about just strong businesses in general and leading with that story when you're raising capital. So I think the judge is still out, but there's definitely something that we are recommending our founders is to stop talking about the green premium, but just talk about you're building a really solid business and therefore you will attract not just the 12% of money that goes into climate tech, but you can actually tap into investors more widely speaking.

Yeah, data is. It's kind of scary. And I'm interested. I actually don't know the number as far as what investment level was last year compared to 2023, you talked about a decline, I think you said 12% in climate tech investment from the previous year. So as an industry there's definitely a little bit of preconceived sort of perceptions I guess on certain categories. And obviously AI has been hot property and there's been so much money go into that. There's other, like deep tech, I think MedTech, two of the other ones are getting a lot of funding. Climate tech, for whatever reason, I think because of what you just described, there's a limitation or barrier that may stop a strong business that actually has really powerful business model, a customer base, a clear market for growth, actually getting funding just because of that one name. Have you seen that happen where there's been a great business that didn't get funding but just because of the category rather than the model itself?

Well, I think, you know, right now people are a little bit wary of climate. You know, it got, it went in 2020, 2021, it was, it had a spike in growth in terms of money coming in. And now we're actually seeing things slowing down as you said. And I think it's because there's very few investors that will invest because it's the right thing to do. And so that's why I think we should change the storytelling to actually focus on the superior unit economics and just the fact that we're building extraordinary businesses that also happen to have an environmental impact. So. So yes, I think that we are missing out on tapping into huge sources of capital because we're assuming that investors would back it because it's the right thing to do as opposed to just building and backing a solid business.

Yeah, yeah. Fascinating. And do you think that that narrative, like fast forward 12 months, if we were to speak again, do you think that the optics may potentially shift? Do you think that actually talking more around investing into climate forward businesses is going to be something that's important for them to talk about because of public pressure and the removal of a lot of government funding with the changing government.

Well, the reality is like if there's, you know, less policies that force us to do climate investments, then there's no reasons for companies to do that. Right. But I think the private sector is well underway in terms of backing these industries. You know, we already have, you know, last year was $30 billion invested in climate tech. So you know, my opinion is like the industry is underway, it's going to continue is we're just going to go through you know, peaks and valleys as any industry. But I think, you know, there's some solid industries like carbon removal, industry, energy storage, all the AI powered climate solutions are going to, you know, obviously grow in importance. Electrification of pretty much everything. Nature based solutions are becoming more popular. So I think, you know, the sector is well underway. But like every industry, we're going to go through ups and downs.

Yeah, yeah, agree. And I think that the ability to have strong case studies as well, it takes just one business to all of a sudden turn into a genuine rocket, have an exit and have a long lasting legacy as well. And we've seen categories where that's been the case and it can be something that becomes a milestone that gives other investors more confidence to be able to invest in the category if they see such a success. Within that, are there any companies that sort of spring to mind that you think have got a trajectory of growth like globalization in the sense of scale and could be some of those sort of, I guess, poster childs that we can lean on to be able to drive change?

Absolutely. I mean if you look, if take an example that everybody knows, if you look at what Tesla did for the automotive industry, I mean it's shifted the entire industry now. You know, every single car brand has an electric car. So that's an example of, you know, a company that absolutely transformed a vertical. And if you're looking at other, you know, thinking a little bit about, you know, predictions for this year, what we're seeing in terms of companies, actually what we're predicting this year is that there's going to be quite a lot of bankruptcies and consolidations because there are, you know, there is right now in climate there's a lot of capital get that goes into precede, seed and up to series A. But then when we're looking for actually scale of capital, there's not a lot of capital at that point. And so because of that and just the adoption, the market adoption sometimes takes more time. We're going to see more consolidations and bankruptcy. You may remember that a couple of months ago Northvolt went bankrupt. Northvolt, like the biggest European battery company went down, which was a huge shock for everyone. So I think, you know, we're going to have to go through these phases where there are some bankruptcies, there are some consolidations to actually make the sector stronger.

Yeah. And I look to AI, which is probably in the public's mind anyway as far as investment side of things. It's much more talked about in the sense of that the growth of Companies and the ability to build a company so quickly means that there's going to be a lot of companies that will get. Get funding but then will disappear. And like the success rate of those companies, I'll be fascinated to see in that the market demand is not there across all of those categories. So only some of those businesses can succeed. So I feel like there will definitely be some negativity that comes around that as well. Where you have companies closed, investors start to get more cautious of investing in that category. And I feel like the climate is there as that can be an enabler in a way for funds to drive returns, but also broaden the category where the capital balance actually goes more diverse into a range of industries rather than just AI. Not all of these businesses can survive. There's going to be a rate of attrition where a lot of them will close because the market demand isn't there. The technology is growing much faster than the consumer demand.

Absolutely.

So I think that inevitably that's going to shift and we're going to see people will start to readjust their portfolios, what they prioritize with investments. And is there an upside there for climate tech?

So a good example of that is alternative protein. You may remember in 2020, 2021, a lot of capital went into all the alternatives to meat. Right. But unfortunately that vertical has been difficult recently because we haven't seen big exits, big IPOs in this vertical. And so investors are waiting to have like a real liquidity episode that could really confirm that there's money to be made. And so that's an example, you know, of a climate vertical, obviously food, highly linked to climate, that is actually not doing well. Right now we're waiting for, you know, a big liquidity episode to actually validate that there's an investment thesis there. So I think that's, that's where we're at right now. But then there's other verticals like solar, that are much more developed and where it's proven that, you know, money can be made.

Yeah, absolutely. And I love when you start to see momentum throughout existing businesses. And an IPO would be brilliant as far as the storytelling piece to be able to see the return that people are getting from those categories. Sort of in the same lane a little bit. I was reading a report and it reported $86 billion that was unspent in investment funds on climate tech. So they had the capital available, but they hadn't spent it in 2024. I don't know how accurate that is, but it's A significant amount of money. Do you think that the barrier as far as the category is a problem there, there aren't enough businesses to invest in. Why do you think there's existing capital there to be spent that's not being invested?

Yes, I read about that number as well. And that number is correct. It comes from Sightline, which is a very reputable market research company. So that is correct. So there is, you know, a lot of capital, dry powder, unspent. And the main reason for that is because we haven't really seen any IPOs over the last few years. The market, the IPO market has been pretty dry, which means that most investors have been very hesitant to deploying capital. And so right now we're waiting to see that market pick up again to then feel more comfortable deploying. So yes, you know, investors last year were much more cautious. As you know, due diligence were much harder. People were just not willing to put their money down because the liquidity market was so weak.

Yeah, and that's fascinating, right? I guess a cautious market. But if you're a traditional VC fund and you've got LPs who are expecting returns and multipliers like dry powder sitting there, not being spent creates future risk as well as far as portfolio. And we need to maximize those returns.

Right. I think, you know, all investors are waiting for liquidity to get their money out and to. For the right opportunities. Right. And so, you know, and there's also. It was just an environment where people were just not deploying as much as they usually do.

Yeah, definitely. Okay, double clicking a little bit on some of the categories. Obviously you talked before around Tesla and just anything now, electric and rechargeable. We're both in New York and like even walking down the sidewalk, you need to watch out just due to the volume of electric vehicles, from scooters to mopeds, all sorts of things. And that demand, as far as advanced batteries, from a resource perspective, globally, material wise recharging within that industry itself, it feels critical for us all collectively as a global population to rely upon that in the future. But are there any sort of future considerations in that category? Is there a ceiling or is there a potential point where we run out of the materials to be able to use batteries?

I think definitely, you know, all these batteries rely on critical materials and minerals. And so that is definitely, you know, an issue right now. I think in terms of funding, you know, mobility has attracted a lot of funding, even too much funding in terms of the amount of opportunities that are actually available. So that is actually a vertical in climate that is like overly funded, if you will, in the sense that there's not enough opportunities for the amount of money that wants to go in there. But then there's other verticals that are predicted to grow significantly this year beyond mobility. Such as, you know, obviously carbon removal technologies attracted a lot of funding and will go mainstream. Energy storage, obviously massive electrifications of pretty much everything. This is also going mainstream. Nature based solution, which is everything around biodiversity technology is emerging as a vertical. And of course, as you said, everything AI powered climate solution is going to become more popular. So yeah, I think there's a lot beyond mobility that is also interesting. I'm personally invested in mobility as well, but I think there's a lot more and those verticals are predicted to be quite big in 2025.

Yeah. And within that category of more traditional power grids, I was reading reports, I'm just fascinated by the net zero conversation. And I think from a country by country perspective, everyone has their own targets. Some have been more proactive than others. But the cost of actually getting the traditional power grid down to net zero, I was reading it, I think it was close to a trillion dollars annually would need to be spent to be able to do that. And I think about that volume of capital, do you think in the next five years that investment into climate tech and trying to shift the grid into renewable power could actually use that money in a way where it didn't have to be spent on traditional power sources and could actually pivot through that time? Are there risks in that? Is that actually a genuine opportunity?

I mean, you know, we are, you know, talking about the electrification of the grid, but we're also seeing, you know, right now in Europe, if you look at Germany, they're actually looking to potentially, you know, bring back coal and bring back nuclear while, you know, nuclear was phased out by angular market. So I think right now we're also seeing nuclear and other technologies as potentially being part of a solution for the grid. So yes, we're pushing, you know, renewables, but we're seeing also source of energy like nuclear coming back.

Yeah. On the nuclear side, again, reading a fair bit on that. It seems that it had a lot of negative baggage and the irony in the sense of climate tech and what goes around that from a rebrand perspective, which we started off today with the nuclear side, if it's managed and controlled, it seems like that the risk is not as serious as people once first thought. Is that an accurate comment?

I mean, it's really a matter of opinion because you know, if you look at Fukushima Y or other nuclear incidents and the consequence they had on people's health, it's pretty massive. But I think if you look at the amount of generic energy that needs to be produced, obviously nuclear for a lot of people, a lot of people believe that nuclear needs to be part of the solution just about because of the amount of energy that is required to power any nation.

Yeah. And it's, and it's one of those realizations the, the intention to be net zero like significant reductions in carbon versus the practicality of having the infrastructure and technology in place to be able to do that. And those two things don't necessarily match. Right. So it's, you're going to have barriers between the two And I'm not sure if I'm being idealistic here in the sense of how achievable is the net zero and how much does it target for? Say it was 2030 reduction by a certain percentage combined with the technology and infrastructure and I guess innovation that can drive that shift. Are those things actually achievable?

Well, I think what we notice hasn't been accounted for and created an issue where for example, you know, the war in Ukraine created a massive pressure on energy supply and then makes it much harder to reach these targets. So it's not just about our needs and the targets also accounting for wars and what that creates on the actual energy supply chain and demand. So I think it's also about taking into consideration these big geopolitical events that will put enormous amount of pressure on the grid. And so that's why potentially nuclear could, could still be a solution.

Yeah. And if you look at post pandemic and there's still I think a long tail impact as far as the cost of goods transport globally, just access to materials. If you now look at countries and tariffs that are being put on on imports from certain countries as well, there's a lot that goes behind some of those things. It just takes one shift as you said with Ukraine, which is awful that that's going on but the flow on effect completely changes the way that we work and trade globally and build infrastructure at scale and access to materials, whatever that looks like. It's things that you can't prepare for that you need to be able to try and limit. I guess when you're thinking about future planning.

Exactly, exactly.

Interesting. I want to be able to go into something that's more fun and I've been to a range of conferences. I went to the regeneration VC1 recently and some of the topics that came up in that and some of the innovation and there's things that are way outside my knowledge base from a scientific level. Is there anything that you've seen that's taking your eye? That's just a really interesting use of technology of how we can start to reduce carbon emissions or anything in the climate category broadly as well?

Well, I think right now a lot of people think about seaweed. What can be done with seaweed, for example? Seaweed can be used for fertilizers, it can be used to create new materials. It's really widespread, for example in Southeast Asia. So we're, we're seeing a lot of medicines looking at that right now. We are looking also at bean less coffee. So you know, coffee made with fermentation in the lab with microbes. So we don't rely on agriculture. So I mean there's a lot of exciting things happening. I think we see a lot of exciting things happening all the time. I think now is about making sure, like how do we build solid businesses around these new technologies so that they can really scale?

Yeah. And I love some of those ideas. One of the ones that I heard, which was almost a two pronged win for farmers and for the climate at large was the material that you could put through farms on grounds it wasn't toxic at all to plants or animals within this space. But it was actually a carbon removal technology as well. So it was a partnership between large farms to be able to do that. So farmers can earn money from their land through things they hadn't done before. But there's also ways that you can reduce carbon. I don't know if you know what that technology would be. I can't recall. But it's just that kind of thinking for me is the part that I find fascinating. You're not just creating your business and building a product, you're actually thinking about how do you innovate in science at large.

Absolutely. And you know, carbon removal is one of the vertical that is predicted to grow significantly in 2025. It is backed by the big oil companies that need those technologies to keep, to basically stay in business. So yeah, absolutely. Carbon removal is going to become mainstream and it's one of the vertical that is the best funded right now.

Interesting. I met at the same conference a lady and she was a scientist. Really, really fascinating. She was talking about methane and it's something that. I know what it is, I've heard of it. But in context of the temperature of our atmosphere and how much hotter methane is compared to Carbon, but it's not something that's ever talked about.

Yeah, absolutely.

Are there any sort of like reasons why that's the case? Is it just not there's not a tipping point of enough businesses yet or is it not as sexy? Like what are the things that like that prevent people going into the methane space compared to carbon?

So I think, you know, CO2 is obviously the most obvious one that is the most discussed. Methane actually stays in the atmosphere for much longer. So we're now seeing, you know, investors and entrepreneurs wanting to tackle that as well. So that's also starting, it's still emerging though still early days, most of the focus has been on carbon, but now we're also seeing the focus move, moving more on biodiversity, on nature in general, on reforestation, on just restoring nature in general, and not just talking about the carbon story. So, you know, looking at technologies beyond carbon, you know, in, you know, there's the carbon market, but we're also looking at the biodiversity market now that is starting to pick up. You know, you may have seen that the carbon market actually since 2023 went down 60% because of the credibility crisis of carbon credits, as I'm sure you read. And we're actually foreseeing that this year the carbon market is going to pick up again, as will the biodiversity market. So I think there's a lot more than CO2 right now that we're talking about and it's great to seeing that things are getting more sophisticated and that we're tackling not just CO2, but other emissions as well.

Yeah, absolutely. And it's one of the beautiful things about nature that we can't forget. Right. It's, it's easy to, to think innovation and future facing things that you can do to drive change. But the planet that we live has a beautiful way of being able to manage itself. And it's just the saturation of overuse, the growth of the population that's put such a burden on the planet that it just can't keep up. I read something similar to what you were just saying. There's a regeneration of soil because food safety is going to become a real problem with temperature changes and even the overuse of soil as well, where it just doesn't have the nutrients, so it relies on fertilizers and things to be able to grow food. But if you're able to regenerate soil, the best way to do that is through plants. So there's a, there's a win win in the sense of carbon reduction through plants, but also Regenerating soil and creating a better environment to be actually grow food that we eat for that human safety. That for me is like, how do we sort of scale what nature does best? Is the question that I don't expect you to have a silver bullet answer, but it's something that I don't ever forget about because it's there and exists. It's like, how do we turn that up?

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, solar is fascinating and also something people don't talk about as much. And so I think we're seeing now a shift from talking about the CO2, because, you know, people can argue about that and just talk about things people can understand better, like soil, like growing fruit and vegetables. So there's definitely a shift in storytelling there as well. And on the biodiversity front, you know, historically all conservation biodiversity projects were mostly funded by private and public capital. But right now we're seeing this emergence of the nature tech vertical, which is actually bringing in private capital into nature conservation through technology. So this is also very exciting and set to grow in 2025 as well.

Amazing. So, focusing on 2025, if you were to think about some of the most exciting things that you've seen yourself, you've read, you've heard, what are some of the things that you'd love to happen this year in the climate space where you'd feel like there's actually good momentum and a shift in the tide for a change in not just investment, but innovation as well?

Yeah, I think for me, like I said, I think what's important is shifting the storytelling. So I think all these verticals have potential, but I think we're tapping into a small niche group of investors. The climate investors that only represent 12% of all investors and all startups are going for these investors. And so as we were saying earlier, if we can shift the storytelling to superior unit economics and really building solid businesses, then we're going to unlock enormous amount of capital that is not being unlocked right now. So this is what we're talking about in the community and investors for climate. And then there's obviously, you know, we're seeing also, you know, because the sector is more mature in the US from a technology perspective, then in Europe, it's more developed from a policy perspective. But then if you look at Asia, there's actually some massive opportunities and much lower valuations. So because the sector is less developed in Asia, you're seeing some interesting opportunity where valuations are still small, where obviously climate change impact in Southeast Asia is massive. It's really in your Face. So I'm also excited to see capital flowing in Asia. And you know, my co founder is based in Singapore. A lot of our members are based out of Asia, so we've been following that geography pretty closely. And then in terms of the verticals, like I mentioned before, you know, carbon removal, anything AI powered solutions is going to become huge. Electrification of pretty much everything. Battery storage is becoming massive. So I think there's, you know, there's a lot going on and it's just about making sure that we are presenting things in a way that are compelling so that we tap into more the mainstream investors, in my opinion, as opposed to the very few investors that are just doing something to do the right thing.

Yeah, amazing. Yeah. And I think that what I observed not so much in climate, but at a global trend level was the emerging markets in the investment. And we're starting to see more capital deployed to markets right across the world. And Southeast Asia was definitely one of those. Africa is another one where we're starting to see capital. And what I find fascinating there is the type of climate in the sense of literally what does the area look like where they live is, is it dry, is it heavy rain, no trees? What are you dealing with locally? Because innovation happens when you're seeing something that no one else has seen. Right. You observe something. Whereas right now we're in New York City and it's not like we're looking at any climate patterns, but if you actually have space and low population density, then you're starting to see things. So I think investing in those areas feels like there's going to be some really great ideas that come out of those markets.

Absolutely. And I think, you know, in order to become interested into something, it needs to affect you personally. So, you know, right now with the LA fires, so many people have been affected, you know, so many people have lost their home. So many powerful, influential people. Usually we talk about, you know, climate change usually affects people on the base of the pyramid. Right. Like people that don't have much income are disproportionately affected by climate change. But now with the LA fires, you're seeing like the wealthiest, most powerful people being directly affected by wildfires. And of course, some people argue, you know, wildfires might not be, you know, powered by climate change. Don't, don't need to get into that discussion. But I think for people to get interested in climate, they need to be personally affected by climate change or something to do with the environment, whether it's water pollution, air pollution, to actually get in motion. And so, you know, I'm curious to see what's going to happen now in California in terms of how are they going to shift policies, investments, et cetera, to prevent fires of that extent to happen again?

Yeah, and it's interesting and it's probably not a good reflection on society when it takes something directly impacting people of influence to actually drive change versus the masses who see it, but may not have the influence to be able to make any change. Right. So it's sort of trying to get those scales more balanced with where we actually are more aligned and feel that we can make a difference. So a lot of the people that I talk to day in, day out of founders, I've got a portfolio, I mentor, I invest. But some of the trends that I see happen in startups within the climate space, specifically, as far as founders go, like outside of what you're building, and you've covered this a little bit, but what are the types of things that you think that they should put on their checklist of like mandatories that they should be doing when they're starting to build their, their business out? Outside of all the traditional things from product build, marketing operations, all the standard things, is there anything that you think is a must have to make sure that they're able to work towards that goal of investment growth scale from a.

Founder perspective, you mean?

Yeah, correct.

Yes. So, you know, we always tell founders like the three things that are key that will get you to close your round faster than anybody else. The first thing is obviously traction, you know, sales, revenue. That's obviously number one. That speaks for itself. The second one is your ability to be able to raise capital as a founder. So, you know, the primary, as you know, the primary responsibility of a founder is, you know, potential company culture and money in the bank. So as a founder you need to show that you can raise capital. And another thing that we mentioned to founders is actually to cover questions that, you know, investors might not ask you. You know, not the generic basic questions, but thinking about everything that could be asked and bring it up before investors do. Because usually, you know, if an investor conversation goes is short, it might be that the person's not interested. So we really want to make sure that founders actually are able to cover everything and actually cover information on questions that investors do not ask.

To get to the first question, does climate tech need a rebrand? Is there any sort of momentum or any opportunity as well for us to band together to be able to take those insights and let the climate tech industry at large actually band together to elevate the category and sort of eliminate some of the barriers that we're facing.

My answer to does climate tech need a rebrand? My answer is, no, I don't think we need a rebrand. But I do think that we need to, as I said, talk about superior unit economics, road to profitability, instead of just the right thing to do and paying more for for green and reducing carbon emissions. So I do think that, and I think that as an industry, we're actually pretty very collaborative. You know, if anybody works in climate, you'll know that it's a very friendly industry. People share information, people share deals. People are much more collaborative than in other industries because a lot of people are driven by making this space, this world a little bit better. So it's a very friendly and collaborative industry. So there's actually a lot that we do together, we talk a lot. So if you compare it to other industries, there's actually much more collaboration than in others.

Amazing. That's positive. And I like to hear those things. And I don't live and breathe the category like yourself, but I feel like that I get that sentiment with the people that I talk to. So I think that's a good place to leave today. So thanks so much for joining us, Helena. This was so informative for me. I'll definitely add some links in the show, notes for people to be able to connect with you directly before we leave. Is there anything that you want to talk about that you're working on that you'd love to hear from people or what things could they reach out to you for?

Well, absolutely. Well, thanks for having me, Andy. And two plugins, shameless plugins. One is, if you're a climate founder, precede and you need support with fundraising, we have a program called Unstoppable where we can support you. And the second one is if you are an angel investor, private investor, and you want to invest alongside R, we also have an investment syndicate with investors for Climate that we just launched. So, yeah, don't hesitate to reach out. And Andy, thank you so much for spending time with me and having me on the show.

It's been my pleasure. And yeah, look forward to talking more. And thank you for kicking off my series of podcasts, episode number one as well. So, Elena, it's been a pleasure. Look forward to talking to you soon. Thank you.