Suggestions
Tommy Ricketts
CEO & co-founder at BeZero Carbon
Tommy Ricketts is a seasoned professional with a strong background in economics, finance, and environmental sustainability.
He holds a Master of Arts (MA) degree in Economic History with First Class Honours from The University of Edinburgh.
Tommy is currently serving as the CEO & Co-founder of BeZero Carbon, a company focused on environmental initiatives.
Prior to this role, he held the position of Vice President, Global Investment Strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
He also brings extensive experience from his time as the European Equity Strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch and as a Policy Adviser at the British Bankers' Association (BBA).
Tommy Ricketts has a diverse professional background that includes roles such as Senior Account Executive at Westbourne Communications and Political Assistant at Frank Schwalba-Hoth.
Highlights
Five snap reactions to the latest from Science Based Targets initiative...
-
👣 🥫 🛣...until "late 2025" provides no intellectual leadership. Corporates are left with no clarity and no firm guidance.
-
Saying "that a negligible amount of scientific evidence assessed meets the conditions set out for this exercise and answer the research question" is at odds with what our team of more than 100 scientists find. Rather than only 5/10,267 papers "provided comparable data to assess the effectiveness of carbon credits", the BeZero Carbon team have compiled a research library of 113k documents of which more than 10k academic papers directly inform our ratings. It's about taking the best of what's known.
-
The framing of the debate is firmly stuck in 2020 (or carbon markets 1.0 as some call it). There is so much more to the conversation than confining the use of credits to "technical offsetting". The problem is well known. Offsetting is easy to portray as a fallacy if it relies on a binary commodity view of the market. Matching an emissions liability equal to 1tCO2e with an environmental attribute certification that is less than or equal to 1tCO2e is a broken system. We know that not every credit is equal, that's why carbon ratings exist (and other industry standard improving initiatives). What we need is a market structure that allows for this equation to hold (shift to a security-based approach and risk-adjusted tonnes) and allows a positive feedback loop of improvements (ability to fail). Sadly nothing was said on this vital topic.
-
No discussion is given to the use of carbon credits as contributory instruments. Beyond value chain mitigation is merely a longwinded way of saying "charity". Scope 3 emissions are, by definition, someone else’s Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Committing to decarbonisation and using high quality carbon credits means, at the very least, emitters are double-paying for the benefit of the planet and people. Why stymie the benefits of a potential $100bn carbon market industry in favour of a position that corporates that offset (or buy credits at all) do that instead of decarbonising. The data ("science") on this shows the opposite. No one thinks a company should buy low quality carbon credits and do nothing else at all. No one is suggesting that.
-
Those of us trying to build the market are left living in Schrödinger's carbon market. Is it alive, or is it dead. The developer - investor - offtaker "primary market" remains buoyant (alive) but the intermediary - end buyer market fundamentally lacks a reason to buy (is on life support). The business cycle powering primary activity in nature and tech removals can't go on forever without clarity on end buyer rules of engagement. If it fails, all that institutional dithering will achieve is to make decarbonisation harder and more expensive. Continuous calls for "more research" and "we're not sure" and "we'll let you know" doesn't help anybody, least of all the climate.
In July, the Science Based Targets initiative could allow carbon credits to be used as an instrument to compensate for its members’ Scope 3 emissions. Roughly six gigatonnes of CO2e, or a sixth of global emissions, stand to be impacted - equivalent to a $100bn carbon market.
Following ChatGPT, Ozempic...is carbon about to have its own 50x event?
BeZero Carbon's new paper is a simple thought piece setting out the immense benefits at stake for the planet and its people - https://lnkd.in/dYavXjWv.
SBTi's "will they won't they" saga is just the latest in an increasingly toxic debate wrongly framed as an us vs. them, climate vs. capitalism, action vs. inaction, scientific vs. unscientific picket line. I reject this framing.
Climate action is everything, everywhere, all at once.
Speaking to corporates, it's clear SBTi is too big to fail. It's been amazing at bringing emitters into their climate journey and its collapse would be a major set back. We need it. We also need carbon credits, and every other type of climate action tool.
A $100bn carbon credit market is not the panacea, but it also means:
- $700 bn invested annually into associated carbon project activities
- 1.2bn tCO2e of potential annual atmospheric impact from retired carbon credits
- 17m direct carbon project-related jobs supported globally (more than Oil & Gas)
- $60 bn of revenue generated each year by carbon projects that support UN SDGs
- 150 m hectares of land being restored by nature-based projects
- 20% of the carbon removals required to meet Paris Agreement-aligned targets
These outcomes are why so many brilliant academics, professionals, and policy-makers are committed to carbon market’s long-term success.
