Precision Agriculture: Does Climate Tech VC Money Flow Into Agri-Chemicals & Monocrops?

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

In my experience, climate tech venture capital money is not so different from regular VC money. They still invest only in hockeystick type companies, long shots that might go bust quick, or might go big. VCs make 20 bets hoping that one of them becomes the next Uber and makes up for the rest of the lost millions.

I spent a summer trying to pitch climate tech investors to invest in CleanTechnica and most VCs didn’t even return my messages, even warm ones, even intros made on LinkedIn, you name it. I networked. I hustled. I understood media is not a hockeystick type of investment profile, but offered that CleanTechnica could help support the rest of their portfolio by promoting the rest of their companies (as long as we disclose it and make it clear, I saw no issue with that, if it helped promote climate stability, I’m all for it).

Hilariously enough, those same VCs still hire expensive PR firms who just pitch their story ideas to CleanTechnica. And we at CleanTechnica have to sit and be nice and try to respond with empathy while we watch the virtually pure propaganda media companies of the world get inordinate amounts of free Dark Money to peddle anti-clean tech influence.

I’ll follow this post with an analysis of one clean tech investment that aligns some VC money with corporate strategic money, and directly invests in a company that helps giant agribusiness keep their monocrops working longer and directly pays for chemicals made from fossil fuels. I’m not opposed to it, as you’ll see.

Just interesting how the cookie crumbles, isn’t it?

Image courtesy of Berkeley Law.