My simplified mental model for climate tech separates it into three tasks:
1) UNDERSTAND it
2) MITIGATE it
3) DEAL WITH it

Each task spawns a multitude of subcategories and hundreds of opportunities for innovation. Examples:

1) UNDERSTAND it
Climate risk analytics
Corporate GHG management & accounting
Methane emissions monitoring
Consumer carbon labelling, branding & decision support

2) MITIGATE it
Clearly the largest category and hardest to easily segment, but..
Five sectors contribute 86% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Decarbonize these sectors fast enough and you're in good shape:

- Electricity & heat (25%)
- Agriculture & land use (23%)
- Industry (18%)
- Transportation (14%)
- Buildings (6%)
I like to classify any technology, within any of these five sectors, according to which stage of the value chain they address:

- Production: stop emissions at the source
- Delivery: change how goods and products are delivered to the consumer
- Consumption: buyer-driven changes in behavior or use
- Accelerant: the enabling layer that provides incentives for, and verification of, decarbonization

E.g. in industry, a company like Boston Metal, which uses molten oxide electrolysis to produce decarbonized steel, addresses the production layer. Whereas additive mfg companies like Desktop Metal (no relation) solve for the demand side by reducing waste and material use.

So any new climate mitigation tech can be placed somewhere on here:

That leaves DEAL WITH it, e.g.
Grid resilience
Building resilience
Natural disaster preparedness & response
Insurtech/climate tech overlap

An interesting question for climate tech capital allocation is to decide roughly how much to dedicate to each challenge. I would suggest that, no matter the exact split, mitigation should receive the lion's share of the time and resources. It is not, after all, entirely too late.

So my prior is something like a 15%-70%-15% split among UNDERSTAND/MITIGATE/DEAL, perhaps shifting a bit more toward DEAL as time passes (unfortunately).