Humans have an innate desire to name things, but to be honest, were not always that good at it.Take climate tech: its a category of companies and technologies that, broadly speaking, seek to minimize or reverse our impact on the climate while also helping us adapt to its increasing changes. As terms go, climate tech is actually not bad since it defines the sectors focus in two words.Its certainly better than its predecessor, clean tech. Its what startups that today fall under the climate tech banner would have likely called themselves just over a decade ago. It wasnt a very good descriptor, though. To the uninitiated, clean tech just as easily could have meant robot vacuums or novel household supplies. Climate tech is much easier to grasp.But climate tech is about a decade old, and humans also like to feel like theyre at the vanguard of something new. That, plus climate techs scope has grown to the point where its getting a bit unwieldy. Some have begun to explore alternatives over the past year or so.Planetary health emerged as an early alternative, first coined in the medical journal The Lancet in 2014. Some investors embraced it, in part to address the problem of scope creep. Plenty of companies dont seek to address carbon pollution, but are still focused on technologies that would address humanitys impact on the planet. It has its appeal, but most people have stuck with climate tech.Then Donald Trump was elected for a second time. Climate hasnt exactly transformed from a buzzword into a dirty word, but people are actively talking about distancing themselves from the term. You can try to fight it if you want, but the migration had actually begun before the election. In five years, well be calling climate tech something else entirely.Whatll it be? People have started throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Planetary health is an obvious alternative; its descriptive and has an early lead. The American dynamism platform contains a clean energy plank, but that term is associated with a single VC firm a16z, whose partner Katherine Boyle coined it and runs a practice under that name and theres a lot of other stuff packed into it, including defense, public safety, education, housing, and more.Frontier tech is another, though if you thought climate tech was too broad, you definitely wont like how much frontier tech encompasses. Critical infrastructure? That overlaps with climate tech, but the Venn diagram isnt a perfect circle. Deep tech is another that wraps around climate tech, but involves a lot more like AI, robotics, and quantum computing.The most recent proposal was growth tech. Its not my intention to throw stones, but I just cant see it catching on. Its too generic arent all venture-backed startups seeking growth? and it doesnt capture the gist of what these startups are pushing for. Is it likely that climate tech will unleash a wave of growth and industrial innovation? You dont have to look much further than China to understand that. But I think there are better terms.Since Im not one to critique without offering a solution, heres mine: If we really need a term, Im going to suggest resilience tech. Its not perfect, and Ill probably think of something better in the future. But for now, I think itll do. It captures the gist of what climate tech is driving at: to make both the world and humanity more resilient.