Methodology
This site uses Codex to reorganize Climate Tech Map research around outcomes—the things that need to happen for climate technologies to scale. It also adds impact, market, and neglectedness estimates.
Descriptions, technologies, references, readiness labels, and taxonomy come from Climate Tech Map. Its innovation imperatives and moonshots appear together in one outcomes table. Where this site adds or models information, it says so.
Impact
Sector Impact is copied unchanged from Climate Tech Map. It describes emissions linked to a sector or opportunity area, not the effect of one outcome. A dash means the source provides no value.
Outcome Impact is a modeled 2050 estimate for comparing outcomes. It narrows a reference impact by the addressable share, pathway share, outcome scope, and attribution. It is a judgment-based estimate—not a Climate Tech Map value, measurement, or forecast.
When boundaries align, Climate Tech Map provides the reference. Carbon-removal outcomes instead use the State of Carbon Dioxide Removal median 2050 need of 8.75 GtCO2/year. Boundary-mismatched results are marked reference-equivalent: useful for ranking, but not physical emissions or removal claims.
Outcome impacts are not additive: some overlap, enable other outcomes, or describe portfolios. Sensitivity ranges test assumptions, not statistical confidence. Outcome cards link their evidence; broader sector and pathway assumptions draw on IPCC AR6 WGIII evidence.
Market
Estimated market uses cited public sources to identify companies associated with each outcome. It is not a complete market census.
Funding and people figures are company-wide, not assigned to the outcome. Totals include disclosed figures only; funding excludes grants and project finance. Public sources can disagree, and companies can appear under several outcomes, so do not add these totals together.
Neglectedness
Neglectedness is a relative 0–100 rank across all 122 outcomes. A higher score means greater modeled climate impact with fewer identified companies and less disclosed funding. It is not an absolute score, investment rating, or complete measure of attention.
The calculation weights relative Outcome Impact at 50%, fewer companies at 30%, and less funding per reporting company at 20%. Sparse disclosure weakens the funding signal; missing funding is not treated as zero. The weights are judgment calls.
Codex produced these scores, and no human has reviewed them. The market signals omit incumbent investment, grants, project finance, research, and policy support. Sensitivity checks leave the leading results broadly stable, but impact assumptions remain the biggest source of rank changes.
The choice of activity signals is informed by IPCC AR6 WGIII Chapter 16 and the IEA State of Energy Innovation 2026. Normalization follows OECD/JRC guidance. These sources do not endorse this formula.