guest column

Unlocking climate tech’s potential in Houston: What health innovation's rise can teach us

If we can channel the same sense of urgency and public commitment toward climate change as we did for health crises in the past, climate tech could overcome its current obstacles. Photo via Getty Images

Over the past several decades, climate tech has faced numerous challenges, ranging from inconsistent public support to a lack of funding from cautious investors. While grassroots organizations and climate innovators have made notable efforts to address urgent environmental issues, we have yet to see large-scale, lasting impact.

A common tendency is to compare climate tech to the rapid advancements made in digital and software technology, but perhaps a more appropriate parallel is the health tech sector, which encountered many of the same struggles in its early days.

Observing the rise of health tech and the economic and political support it received, we can uncover strategies that could stabilize and propel climate tech forward.

Health tech's slow but steady rise

Health tech’s slow upward trajectory began in the mid-20th century, with World War II serving as a critical turning point for medical research and development. Scientists working on wartime projects recognized the broader benefits of increased research funding for the general public, and soon after, the Public Health Service Act of 1944 was passed. This landmark legislation directed resources toward eradicating widespread diseases, viewing them as a national economic threat. By acknowledging diseases as a danger to both public health and the economy, the government laid the groundwork for significant policy changes.

This serves as an essential lesson for climate tech: if the federal government were to officially recognize climate change as a direct threat to the nation’s economy and security, it could lead to similar shifts in policy and resource allocation.

The role of public advocacy and federal support

The growth of health tech wasn’t solely reliant on government intervention. Public advocacy played a key role in securing ongoing support. Voluntary health agencies, such as the American Cancer Society, lobbied for increased funding and spread awareness, helping to attract public interest and investment. But even with this advocacy, early health tech startups struggled to secure venture capital. VCs were hesitant to invest in areas they didn’t fully understand, and without sustained government funding and public backing, it’s unlikely that health tech would have grown as quickly as it has.

The lesson here for climate tech is clear: strong public advocacy and education are crucial. However, unlike health tech, climate tech faces a unique obstacle — there is still a significant portion of the population that either denies the existence of climate change or doesn’t view it as an immediate concern. This lack of urgency makes it difficult to galvanize the public and attract the necessary long-term investment.

Government support: A mixed bag

There have been legislative efforts to support climate tech, though they haven’t yet led to the explosive growth seen in health tech. For example, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 gave universities and small businesses the rights to profit from their innovations, including climate-related research. More recently, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 has been instrumental in advancing climate tech by creating opportunities to build projects, lower household energy costs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite this federal support, many climate tech companies are still struggling to scale. A primary concern for investors is the longer time horizon required for climate startups to yield returns. Scalability is crucial — companies must demonstrate how they will grow profitably over time, but many climate tech startups lack practical long-term business models.

As climate investor Yao Huang put it, “At the end of the day, a climate tech company needs to demonstrate how it will make money. We can apply political pressure and implement governmental policies, but if it is not profitable, it won’t scale or create meaningful impact.”

The public’s role in scaling climate tech

Health tech’s success can largely be attributed to a combination of federal funding, public advocacy, and long-term investment from knowledgeable VCs. Climate tech has federal support in place, thanks to the IRA, but is still lacking the same level of public backing. Health tech overcame its hurdles when public awareness about the importance of medical advancements grew, and voluntary health agencies helped channel donations toward research and innovation.

In contrast, climate nonprofits like Cool Earth, Environmental Defense Fund, and Clean Air Task Force face a severe funding shortfall. A 2020 study revealed that climate nonprofits aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only received $2 billion in donations, representing just 0.4% of all philanthropic funding. Without greater public awareness/sense of urgency and financial support, these groups cannot effectively advocate for climate tech startups or lobby for necessary policy changes. This type of philanthropic funding is also known as ‘catalytic capital’ or ‘impact-first-capital’. Prime Impact Fund is one such fund that does not ‘view investments as concessionary on return’. Rather their patient and flexible capital allows support of high risk, high-reward ventures.

A path forward for climate tech

The most valuable insight from health tech’s growth is that government intervention, while critical, is not enough to guarantee the success of an emerging sector. Climate tech needs a stronger support system, including informed investors, widespread public backing, and nonprofits with the financial resources to advocate for industry-wide growth.

If we can channel the same sense of urgency and public commitment toward climate change as we did for health crises in the past, climate tech could overcome its current obstacles.The future of climate tech depends not just on government policies, but on educating the public, rallying financial support, and building a robust infrastructure for long-term growth.

———

Nada Ahmed is the founding partner at Houston-based Energy Tech Nexus, a startup hub for the energy transition.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Exxon Mobil and Chevron made big profits in spring 2026. Photo via Chevron

American oil and gas giants raked in massive spring profits while fighting between Iran and the U.S. impeded petroleum shipments and consumers around the world paid more for fuel and confronted shortages.

The conflict, now in its sixth month, halted most shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway that previously served as a delivery route for a fifth of the world's oil and natural gas. With global supplies constrained, prices for Brent crude, the international standard, soared from about $70 to above $100 a barrel for much of March, April and May, and at one point reached $126.

The money that oil companies accrued between the beginning of April and the end of June could receive extra scrutiny this year. Gasoline, diesel and jet fuel prices climbed sharply during that period, increasing costs for drivers and airline passengers. Supplies ran low in some countries, leading to sporadic fuel rationing in Australia and government office closures in Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Spring, Texas-based Exxon Mobil reported that its second quarter profits doubled to $14.53 billion, boosted by record diesel production. The oil giant brought in $116.02 billion in revenue, up 42%.

Chevron, based in Houston, nearly quadrupled its profits to $12.07 billion and revenue jumped 56% to $70.06 billion.

Six of Europe’s largest oil companies posted combined first-quarter profits of $22 billion, more than 40% higher than last year.

“There are constituencies around the world who are having a very good crisis, and the oil producers are one of them,” said Patrick Galey, fossil fuels lead at Global Witness, a nonprofit organization that investigates environmental issues. “When you compare that to the hundreds of millions of people who are struggling with rolling blackouts, with electricity curbs, rationing, waiting in line for food queues, or the disruption to fertilizers and the potential impact that that has on food prices, we don’t think that it’s a justifiable price for the rest of the world to be paying.”

Lawmakers propose taxing major oil producers for war windfalls

Energy companies such as Exxon and Chevron do not set the price of American oil, which ricocheted from $68 to $115 a barrel during the quarter. It’s driven by supply and demand, and what traders, refiners and other buyers are willing to pay.

Nevertheless, Democrats in Congress introduced bills in March to tax major oil producers for profits they show from 2026 onward and have the tax proceeds redistributed to consumers.

“It’s fair to put a windfall profits tax on inordinate windfall profits rather than cut off children’s food programs,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who introduced the Senate version of the legislation.

Whitehouse's measure and a companion bill introduced by U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna of California would amend the U.S. tax code to impose a per-barrel tax on companies that produced or imported at least 300,000 barrels of oil per day in 2025.

“We cracked $4 again per gallon last weekend in gas stations that I drove by, and that’s a big expense, particularly for families that get their income from driving around from job to job in the work van or the work truck,” Whitehouse said.

The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S., which was below $3 before the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran, reached $4.11 Friday, July 31, about $1 more than last year at this time.

The UK and other European countries implemented temporary windfall profits taxes on fossil fuel companies in 2022. The UK extended that to 2030, according to Tax Foundation Europe.

“Penalizing the businesses who stood by those countries and provided that product going forward is very short-sighted,” Exxon CEO Darren Woods said in a call with investors Friday. “We canceled investments that we had planned for Europe based on the last time they passed a windfall profits tax.”

Refineries rake in cash while consumers pay more for fuel

Outfits such as Exxon and Chevron, which also own refineries, are in the best position to profit from the current market conditions, said Tom Seng, assistant professor of energy finance at Texas Christian University.

Refineries turn oil into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and home heating oil. Higher prices for those products meant Chevron’s quarterly refinery profit was six times as big in 2026, despite processing less crude and selling less products.

“The return on refining, on a percentage basis, has skyrocketed,” Seng said. “Oil right now is priced what it is priced because of the Iran war. But in the meantime, the refineries are making money hand over fist.”

The global refining market is under-supplied, and with countries such as Russia and China no longer exporting, companies like Exxon and Chevron have to pick it up, said Rob Thummel, senior portfolio manager at Tortoise Capital. “The world is going to be short jet fuel, diesel and gasoline, so we’ll probably continue to see higher profits there.”

Globally, not all refineries have been able to get the supply of crude oil they need to meet demand since the conflict began, said Timothy Fitzgerald, a University of Tennessee professor of business economics who studies the petroleum industry.

As a result, refineries that have ample oil to work with, including those in the U.S., are turning high profits, particularly when they make jet fuel and diesel, which is priced about 41% higher in the U.S. than before the Strait of Hormuz was blocked.

"If you’re a company that owns a bunch of refinery capacity, things look pretty good," Fitzgerald said.

American refineries are running at near-full capacity and poised to benefit because some refineries in the Middle East and Russia were damaged. And Asia can't get the amount of Middle East oil needed for refining.

“Ultimately, users of the energy services pay,” Fitzgerald said. “Consumers, people like you and me buying retail motor gasoline or diesel fuel or airplane tickets. But it also means that almost everything else we buy has an embedded energy content to it ... and this is where you start to worry about it driving increases in costs.”

Not all oil and gas companies benefit in the same way

In the present geopolitical environment, some companies are winners while others are losers, Fitzgerald said.

“If you’re a company like a U.S. (oil) producer, even a U.S.-based international company like an Exxon or Chevron who’s got lots of production outside the Gulf, things are good. You’re selling your product at a higher price,” he said.

But companies in the Middle East that are not able to benefit from higher prices because they are struggling to get their liquefied natural gas out of the Persian Gulf or have a lot of damaged oil fields or processing facilities have a very different take on recent events, Fitzgerald added.

“Your ability to sell anything and the volume that you may be getting out is so curtailed that your revenues are way down and you’re incurring higher transportation costs and security costs,” he said.

Exxon and Chevron weren’t as profitable in the first quarter due to the way oil is traded; the first real opportunity they had to take advantage of higher prices oil was in April. Companies that had a lot of oil stored in floating tankers and available for spot-market trading, including some European ones, were able to benefit from March’s higher oil prices, Seng said.

Trending News