There's an inherent human inclination to assign names to things, yet our proficiency in this endeavor is not always up to par. Consider the realm of climate technology: it encompasses a spectrum of companies and innovations that, in essence, aim to mitigate or reverse our environmental impact while also facilitating our adaptation to its escalating changes. In terms of nomenclature, "climate tech" is a fairly apt choice, succinctly encapsulating the sector's dual focus within a pair of words. It surpasses its predecessor, "clean tech," which startups in this domain might have identified with a decade ago. However, "clean tech" was a rather ambiguous term, potentially conjuring images of robotic vacuums or innovative household items for those unfamiliar with the concept. "Climate tech" is far more straightforward. Despite its clarity, the term "climate tech" has been in circulation for about a decade, and humans have a penchant for feeling at the forefront of novelty.

Coupled with the fact that the scope of climate tech has expanded to a point of unwieldiness, some have started to seek alternative terminology over the past year. "Planetary health" emerged early on as a contender, first introduced in the medical journal The Lancet in 2014. Some investors have gravitated towards it, partly to tackle the issue of expanding scope. Numerous companies may not target carbon emissions directly but are still engaged in technologies addressing human impact on the planet. While it holds appeal, the majority have continued to use "climate tech." Then, with the election of Donald Trump for a second term, the term "climate" has not morphed into a taboo but has sparked conversations about distancing from it. Resisting this shift is an option, but the transition had already begun prior to the election. In the next five years, we may very well be referring to climate tech by a different name entirely. What will it be? Experiments are underway to see what gains traction. "Planetary health" is an evident choice; it is descriptive and has a head start.

The American dynamism platform includes a clean energy component, a term associated with a specific venture capital firm—Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), where partner Katherine Boyle coined it and operates a practice under that name—but it encompasses a broader range of sectors, including defense, public safety, education, housing, and more. "Frontier tech" is another contender, but if "climate tech" seemed too broad, "frontier tech" covers an even more extensive array of fields. "Critical infrastructure" overlaps with climate tech, but their relationship is not entirely inclusive. "Deep tech" is another term that encompasses climate tech but extends to include AI, robotics, and quantum computing, among other things. The most recent suggestion was "growth tech."

While I'm not one to criticize without proposing a solution, I find it too generic—it doesn't capture the essence of what these startups are striving for. Aren't all venture-backed startups seeking growth? And does it really encapsulate the potential for climate tech to catalyze a wave of growth and industrial innovation? Looking at China provides a clear understanding of this potential. However, I believe there are more fitting terms. As I am not one to critique without offering an alternative, here is my suggestion: if we truly need a term, I propose "resilience tech." It's not perfect, and I may think of a better one in the future, but for now, it seems to suffice. It captures the essence of what climate tech is driving towards: enhancing the resilience of both our world and humanity.

Tim De Chant, a senior climate reporter at TechCrunch, has contributed to a diverse array of publications, including Wired magazine, the Chicago Tribune, Ars Technica, The Wire China, and NOVA Next, where he served as the founding editor. De Chant is also a lecturer in MIT's Graduate Program in Science Writing and was awarded a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at MIT in 2018. During this time, he delved into climate technologies and explored innovative business models for journalism. He holds a PhD in environmental science, policy, and management from the University of California, Berkeley, and a BA degree in environmental studies, English, and biology from St. Olaf College.