As we enter the final few months of 2025, a year that has proven volatile for geopolitics, climate tech is facing a new world. One that is defined by those rapidly shifting geopolitics, more careful investors and an increasing focus on opportunistically rebranding climate to resilience.
“Resilience” – as climate tech – is a buzzword that doesn’t mean much. It can encompass making supply chains more resilient and independent, but it can also be a euphemism for defence.
As a founder, it’s crucial to follow your north star and not be led by distractions. Rebranding to resilience is a seemingly easy way to tap into new money pools, but it doesn’t solve the problem of actually developing technology that customers want to buy.
What is resilience tech?
This past year has seen a big shift in attitudes towards climate tech, reflecting changing political realities. While climate tech has always been about innovation, what the market increasingly demands are solutions grounded in customer value. Tangible outcomes, clear unit economics, not just bold ideas.
And then there’s the word climate itself. What once was a unifying call for action now often reads as a political stance. Working in climate has become political. With more governments leaning into conservative agendas, climate tech is no longer just a category – some perceive it as a statement. That makes messaging tricky, especially for companies that want to scale internationally or secure public funding.
Add to that the geopolitical shifts of the last few years – Russia’s war in Ukraine, rising protectionism, fractured supply chains – and we see a new theme emerging: resilience. Governments and industries alike are hungry for solutions that support energy independence and supply chain security. And so, the framing shifts from saving the planet to safeguarding economies. From climate to resilience.
The opportunities and anxieties sparked by a growing resilience sector
Investors are seeing a strong future in resilience, which is reflected in the way funds are being allocated. For example, the European Investment Fund recently approved €8.9 billion of new financing for investments in security, defence and critical raw materials – all sectors fitting under the resilience umbrella.
A new appetite in the market opens up new doors. Companies can attract new customer segments and scale internationally. But it also raises new questions. Resilience, especially when tied to technological sovereignty, is a lens that invites dual-use. Some technologies that support electrification or decarbonisation also serve military purposes. Battery systems are a prime example. That makes it all the more important for climate tech companies to be clear on their positioning, values and the outcomes they want to enable.
While there are some investors who love the notion of dual-use and actively push it, others are more hesitant. European Investment Fund head Marjut Falkstedt has emphatically stated that it will not finance weapons and ammunition with its new financing, but others are yet to commit. It’s a debate that’s starting to pick up speed now.
Where does this leave climate tech?
Amongst all the debates and uncertainty surrounding resilience, one truth remains clear: the transition to net-zero is not just necessary – it’s inevitable.
Funding for European climate tech officially fell by 71% in the first half of this year compared to the same period in 2024, from €21.7bn to €6.2bn. But in reality, the drop hasn’t been quite as dramatic as the numbers suggest. Rather, climate investing has fractured as solutions that were previously branded as climate tech are being reclassified as AI or defence, two areas which have enjoyed a big increase in funding recently. Investments in European AI companies have already grown by 61% in 2025 so far, and funding into European defence increased by nearly 30% over the same time period.
So, while there’s no denying that climate tech is not in its heyday, it’s important to understand that the situation is not as clear-cut as it seems at first glance. This is also only the current situation, and not representative of long-term expectations. While geopolitics constantly shifts, influencing investment in defence on a short-term basis, climate tech remains as vital as ever – that’s not going to change.
Taking a stance
The emergence of resilience tech throws up new, often uncomfortable and ethically challenging questions for companies in the climate tech space. Navigating the new reality of our sector requires all involved – whether that be founders, investors or partners – to take a stance and know where their red line falls.
It’s something that’s very close to me. Since the beginning, I founded my company to work in the climate tech space, and our articles of association clearly state that we can only operate in this area. That’s why we have decided to work exclusively with companies whose core mission is to tackle the climate crisis.
We won’t tell stories for technologies that could be turned towards surveillance, weapons or oppressive systems. If other applications of their technology are incidental, such as alternative proteins for food resilience, we can accept that. We know the world is often more complicated than a simple yes or no. Reality is more nuanced. Resilience can mean many things. If it’s a climate technology now dressed differently – fine. If it’s a shortcut to avoid saying defence or weapons, then no.
The difficult part is arriving at a clear-cut answer. Ultimately, most decisions are binary; they force you to take a stand. We ask those questions in conversations. After having had those discussions, we’ll know where our prospective customers stand. It’s either a yes or a no. We know our stance. What’s yours?
