Author: ECOadmin

(the kiss of midnight, 2025)

“In the middle of the journey of our life, I found myself in a dark forest, for the straightforward path had been lost.” (Inferno, Canto I)

Dante’s words are a haunting reminder of our collective state as we enter the new year. We find ourselves entangled in a moral and political wilderness where democratic and interfaith dialogue, once heralded as a beacon of unity, has too often failed to confront the worst excesses of religious dogma and its political manifestations. This failure has allowed Zionism to perpetuate genocide under the guise of divine sanction and has emboldened Christian Nationalism in the United States to champion land grabs, deny the climate crisis, and reinstate the abuses of colonialism under the mythos of Manifest Destiny.

These ideologies thrive not in isolation but as extensions of a fractured political and economic system that rewards exclusion, disinformation, and the erasure of histories inconvenient to its power. Yet interfaith efforts, grounded in historical materialist analysis, have served potent but often ignored gestures. Interfaith offers dialogue with the accountability of faith and solidarity within righteous belief structures.

To move forward, we must reject identity politics as a neoliberal tool of division, recognizing instead the shared material conditions that bind us. Intersectionality, properly understood, is not the juxtaposition of identities in competition but the weaving of struggles into a cohesive tapestry of resistance and renewal. It requires clarity: an honest reckoning with the past and an uncompromising commitment to dismantling the systems of oppression that perpetuate the abuses of capitalism, ecological destruction, and exclusionary politics. Houses of worship and faith-based institutions should have long ago abandoned religious dogma and theocratic absolutism, and do what it does best: provide communities with the tools to navigate their lives with the urgency of compassion, accountability, and liberation.

This is not a call for new conversations but for new commitments. Interfaith programs must embrace a praxis rooted in historical materialism, addressing the intersection of faith, politics, and economic systems with precision and purpose. This includes recognizing that the most vulnerable communities—indigenous, displaced, and marginalized— may have at one time been subject to religious conversion and oppression, but now hold the keys essential to liberation and ecological and social renewal. Their leadership must be central, not ancillary, to any organizational change.

In 2025, let us strive for transformation. The straightforward path may be obscured, but it is not lost. It can be found through courage, solidarity, and a refusal to be co-opted by the very forces we seek to overcome. We have the collective capacity to confront the realities of our time with an unwavering commitment to truth.

This last year was defined by profound contradictions. We found ourselves trapped in a sanatorium of contradictions, where the promises of democracy and liberation were revealed as hollow facades. The United States, for example, alternated between the chaos of electing a demagogue and the calculated violence of a president who arms regimes to commit genocide. In this sanatorium, the systems that claim to offer care and progress instead confine us in inertia, stifling agency and perpetuating harm. The promise of liberation—whether through the ballot box or international diplomacy—had become another form of entrapment, an illusion of freedom that masked the persistence of imperialist violence and systemic hypocrisy.

Conditions in the sanatorium are becoming daily more insufferable. It has to be admitted that we have fallen into a trap. Since my arrival, when a semblance of hospitable care was displayed for the newcomer, the management of the Sanatorium has not taken the trouble to give us even the illusion of any kind of professional supervision. We are simply left to our own devices. Nobody caters to our needs. I have noticed, for instance, that the wires of the electric bells have been cut just behind the doors and lead nowhere. There is no service. The corridors are dark and silent by day and by night. I have a strong suspicion that we are the only guests in this sanatorium and that the mysterious or discreet looks with which the chambermaid closes the doors of the rooms on entering or leaving are simply mystification.

I sometimes feel a strong desire to open each door wide and leave it ajar, so that the miserable intrigue in which we have got ourselves involved can be exposed.

Bruno Schulz “Sanatorium under the Sign of the Hourglass”

Lost in a sanatorium is like being in a state of transition without clarity—a liminal space where the old structures of oppression persist even as cracks in their façade appear. We condemn Trump’s rhetoric but ignore Biden’s authorization of billions in weapons to destroy Palestinian homes, target hospitals, and perpetuate genocide in Gaza, while waging war and land grabs in Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria. The targeting of journalists, hospitals, and children by Israel is not incidental—it has been part of a broader strategy of annihilation that we enable with weapons, funding, and political cover. Our government and corporations largely support this genocide while feigning concern for human rights, and the complicity is staggering. This is not merely a failing of morality but a structural reality of imperialism: a system that requires war, oppression, and dehumanization to sustain itself.

In the Sanatorium, even the narrative of liberation is weaponized to justify the escalation of military aggression, not just in the Middle East but also against China. This ambiguity does not mark progress but rather the stasis of a system that feeds on war and division.

Information campaigns warp public perception of global shifts. We are fed narratives of China’s aggression while ignoring the U.S.’s provocations in the Pacific and the South China Sea. We are told to fear BRICS as a threat to “Western values” without examining how this multipolar bloc might overcome the challenges of dollar hegemony and provide alternatives to the predatory practices of the IMF, the World Bank, and discriminatory sanctions. Disinformation is not a flaw of the system; it is its backbone, keeping us docile, fractured, and asleep.

And yet, even in this Sanatorium, there are seeds of hope. The cracks in the old structures are real, and the possibility of transformation, though obscured, exists. But it requires confronting the illusions of liberation we have been sold and demanding accountability, not just for the obvious atrocities but for the systems that enable them. If there is to be liberation, it must come not from within the confines of this Sanatorium but from the deliberate dismantling of its walls. The hypocrisy of this system, which cloaks itself in the language of democracy and freedom, is not just staggering—it is systemic.

And yet, even for those of us who are awake, the feeling of helplessness looms large. Trapped in Schulz’s Sanatorium, we are left to wander corridors of inaction, aware of the machinery of destruction yet unable to stop it. The wires are cut, the bells do not ring, and we are left to question if anyone is even listening.

The only clarity we can hold onto is the historical materialist understanding of imperialism as the driving force behind these atrocities. It is imperialism that underpins the genocide in Palestine, the aggression in Yemen and Syria, and the disinformation about China and BRICS. It is imperialism that allows leaders to authorize war while chastising others for lesser sins, or to provoke wars like the proxy war between NATO and Russia taking place in Ukraine.

If we are to make 2025 anything other than a continuation of these horrors, we must confront this reality with unflinching honesty. As we fling open the doors of the sanatorium and expose the machinations of empire, we must resist the comfort of helplessness and embrace the struggle for understanding that imperialism is not inevitable—it is a system that must be dismantled.

The contradictions of this moment demand that we begin this new year not with false hope but with determination. Let us reject the untruths, expose the hypocrisy, and organize our world where mutual solidarity replaces empire, and justice replaces war.

Marx, Engels, and Lenin did not explicitly discuss “identity politics” or “intersectionality” as they are understood in contemporary discourse. However, their writings provide a framework for understanding and integrating these concepts into the broader context of class struggle. For Marx and Engels, historical materialism—the idea that material conditions and class relations provide the context and conditions that drive historical change—was central. They identified the proletariat as the universal agent of revolution, capable of uniting all oppressed groups in the fight against capitalism. This emphasis on class did not ignore other forms of oppression. Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, linked the subjugation of women to the emergence of private property and economic structures. Marx’s writings on colonialism and imperialism, including his analysis in Capital (chapter 33), demonstrated his awareness of how economic exploitation intersected with national and racial oppression. Nonetheless, Marx and Engels prioritized class struggle as the foundation of societal transformation, viewing other forms of oppression as secondary to the capitalist system’s overarching framework. They would likely critique identity politics, if detached from class struggle, for risking fragmentation of the unity necessary to challenge capitalism.

Lenin advanced these ideas by addressing national and racial oppression more explicitly, particularly in the context of imperialism. In works such as The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, his polemic against Rosa Luxemburg precisely on the issue of oppression and exploitation, could easily be adopted to be an argument for intersectionality and to some degree against identity politics. If we look at Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, Lenin underscored the importance of recognizing intersecting oppressions tied to empire and colonial domination. He supported the self-determination of oppressed nations, acknowledging that class struggle must encompass these specific forms of exploitation. However, Lenin maintained that such struggles needed to be integrated into a broader revolutionary framework to avoid being co-opted by bourgeois interests, which appears to be the case in many western rights-based organizations, and political discourse.

From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, intersectionality—the examination of how various axes of oppression interact—can serve as a valuable tool, provided it is aligned with the goals of revolutionary praxis. Lenin would have likely embraced the concept to illustrate how different groups experience class oppression uniquely while cautioning against allowing it to overshadow the centrality of class in systemic transformation.

A Marxist critique of identity politics, however, would likely focus on its potential to fragment collective action or redirect efforts toward reforms that do not fundamentally challenge capitalist structures. At the same time, an intersectional analysis that deepens the understanding of exploitation and builds solidarity across diverse groups aligns with Marxist aims. For Marx, Engels, and Lenin, identity politics risks bourgeois co-option when it isolates grievances from the broader framework of class exploitation. Conversely, intersectionality becomes revolutionary when it illuminates how various oppressions reinforce capitalist systems and mobilizes these insights to unify struggles under the proletarian movement. In practical terms, a Marxist approach would incorporate intersectional analysis to address specific oppressions while retaining the focus on class as the foundation of societal change. This synthesis would ensure that the revolutionary movement remains both inclusive and effective in challenging capitalism’s multifaceted systems of domination.

The power of misinformation is indeed as potent as the power of information, highlighting a fundamental reality: information itself is power. As George Orwell describes in his seminal 1984, this power can be orchestrated, manipulated, and weaponized to serve specific agendas. However, when we refer to a Marxian material discourse of history, we engage with the conditions and contexts that shape economic, social, and political realities. Wealth and industries, driven by vested interests, will lie to protect and perpetuate their dominance. In turn, corporate-funded elections—especially those unrestrained by funding limits—secure policies and representatives that serve private rather than public interests.

Colonialism and privatization regimes have historically depended on violent mechanisms of accumulation: genocide, slavery, theft, fraud, and dispossession. These mechanisms, though often couched in legal frameworks, reveal an unsettling reality—that those who influence laws and judicial bodies can position themselves above the very rules meant to ensure justice. Neoliberalism, with its promise of market-based freedoms, exploits this dynamic by molding information to align with the interests of capital. The rule of law, under such a paradigm, becomes a contradictory rule of special interests.

This underscores why historical materialism remains crucial: it allows us to decode misinformation. Understanding misinformation involves more than simply recognizing falsehoods; it requires situating these falsehoods within the broader structures of power, class, and economic control. By analyzing the historical and material conditions under which misinformation is produced, disseminated, and consumed, we gain insight into the political economy itself.

Reading misinformation, therefore, is not a passive act but a critical exercise. It exposes the mechanisms through which consent is manufactured, inequality is perpetuated, and systemic injustices are maintained. By cultivating this critical literacy, we equip ourselves to challenge not only the narratives but also the structures that uphold exploitative systems.

The Density Debt Index

The working draft of our Density Debt Index (DDI) combines key factors that promote equalization within an ecological accounting framework. Population, area, and GDP are often cited as the most relevant variables, offering a comprehensive approach to valuing economic data. However, the inclusion of debt changes this dynamic, and if we are to pursue a new global order that is just and equitable to people and planet, then we need to include debt factors into our economic well-being.

In expanding this analysis, it is vital to articulate a broader understanding of how debt, development, and economic governance intersect within the frameworks of global power and equity. A Density Debt Index (DDI) is not merely a descriptive tool for ranking economies by debt per capita; it is a prescriptive lens that allows us to reimagine the ethical and practical consequences of debt burdens across diverse national contexts. Debt is both a tool and a weapon, shaping the trajectories of economies in ways that often exacerbate existing inequalities.

Debt in the Global Context: The Case of the United States

The United States presents a paradox within the global economy. As one of the most indebted nations by absolute figures, its economic dominance has largely shielded it from the adverse consequences typically associated with high national debt. This anomaly is underpinned by the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency, a status enshrined in its designation as a Special Drawing Right (SDR) by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The dollar’s stability is not self-sustaining; it is buttressed by a basket of other major currencies, including the Euro, British Pound, Japanese Yen, and, more recently, the Chinese Yuan. The inclusion of the Yuan is emblematic of China’s rising influence and its pragmatic approach to ensuring global financial stability, even as it challenges U.S. hegemony.

The U.S. economy, in many ways, operates with a safety net woven by other nations. The IMF’s management of the SDR and the cooperative role of countries like China highlight the interdependence of modern financial systems. Yet, this interdependence is asymmetric. The U.S. wields its monetary and fiscal policies with impunity, often exporting the costs of its economic, geopolitical and environmental decisions to other nations, particularly those in the Global South. This inequity underscores the fragility of a unipolar economic order that privileges a single currency and economy over the collective well-being of the global community.

The Rise of Multipolarity and the BRICS Challenge

The 2008 financial crisis was a turning point that revealed systemic flaws in the neoliberal economic order. The crisis exposed the vulnerabilities of economies deeply embedded in deregulated financial markets and speculative capitalism. In contrast, several emerging economies, including China, India, and Brazil, weathered the storm more effectively due to their relative insulation from the neoliberal orthodoxy of the Washington Consensus.

This divergence laid the groundwork for the formalization of the BRICS bloc in 2014. BRICS—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—emerged as a cooperative framework aimed at challenging the dominance of Western-led institutions like the IMF and World Bank. The bloc’s initiatives, including the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB), represent an attempt to create a multipolar economic order that prioritizes regional and local development over the extractive mechanisms of global financial capital.

The BRICS model emphasizes the sovereignty of nations over their developmental trajectories, offering an alternative to the conditionalities imposed by Western institutions. This vision aligns with the aspirations of the Global South, which seeks to rectify the structural imbalances perpetuated by decades of neoliberal policies. However, aligning with BRICS comes with significant risks, as evidenced by the backlash faced by nations that challenge Western hegemony. Sanctions, regime change, and negative media narratives are among the tools used to dissuade countries from joining alternative economic frameworks.

Debt as a Modifier of Economic Reality

Reconceptualizing GDP to account for debt factors offers a more nuanced understanding of economic health. When debt per capita and public debt ratios are considered alongside GDP, the disparities between nations like the U.S. and China become stark. For instance, while the U.S. boasts one of the world’s highest nominal GDPs, its per capita debt vastly exceeds that of China, which, despite its large population and significant public investments, has managed its debt within a framework that supports long-term development.

The DDI also exposes the inequities of debt in the Global South, where borrowing often comes with punitive conditions that strip nations of their sovereignty over labor, health, and environmental protections. The neoliberal order has weaponized debt to enforce compliance with free-market policies, deepening poverty and environmental degradation in vulnerable regions.

Reforming National Accounting Systems for Equity and Sustainability

National Accounting Systems (NAS) are foundational to how we understand and govern economies. Yet, their metrics, particularly GDP, remain deeply flawed. GDP measures aggregate production, consumption, distribution, and exchange but fails to account for the depletion of natural resources, the degradation of ecosystems, or the well-being of populations. It is a metric of growth, not progress, and its dominance perpetuates unsustainable practices.

Reforming NAS to incorporate measures of ecological biodiversity, social well-being, and resilience is not merely an academic exercise; it is a moral imperative. The System of National Accounts (SNA), governed by the United Nations Statistical Division, provides a platform for such reforms, but progress has been slow, hindered by the entrenched interests of advanced economies.

The Role of the BRICS+ System in Advancing Equity

The BRICS+ framework, which includes partnerships with non-member nations and regional organizations, offers a pathway to recalibrate the global economic order. By emphasizing localized development, ecological sustainability, and equitable trade, BRICS+ represents a counterbalance to the neoliberal model. Its success, however, depends on the collective resolve of its members and their ability to withstand external pressures.

A New Fulcrum for the Global Economy

The fulcrum of the global economy must shift from its current position, which disproportionately favors Western interests, to a more equitable center that reflects the realities of a multipolar world. This requires not only institutional reforms but also a reimagining of value itself. Debt, trade, investment, and development must be measured against metrics that prioritize human and ecological well-being over profit and power.

originally published on interglobalist.org for intemerate.earth. Consider subscribing to get access to the DDI and other articles that provide a unique geopolitical and economic perspective.

The International Court of Justice’s hearings (2024 December 2) (txt) on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, did something very powerful by framing climate in the context of political self-determination using the rights-based mechanisms of the UN Charter to ignite the intersections of international law and climate accountability. Despite growing legal recognition of the obligations states hold in preventing environmental harm, the persistent influence of economic self-interest and the selective application of international law—particularly by powerful nations like the United States—undermines meaningful solutions. The tension between legal frameworks, such as the UNFCCC, and their capture by monied interests demonstrates how climate governance has become entangled in systems that perpetuate inequality and post-colonial (now eco-neoliberal), ecological destruction.

Here are my summaries of the testimony by the government of the Republic of Vanuatu and representatives of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG).

Ralph Regenvanu, representing Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group, addressed the International Court of Justice, emphasizing the urgency of climate change and its existential threat to nations like Vanuatu. He highlighted the crisis caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, underscoring the inadequacy of past actions to address this known problem. Regenvanu called on the Court to determine the legality of states’ actions contributing to climate change, pointing to violations of international law and the disproportionate burden placed on vulnerable nations. He stressed that only a few states are responsible for the majority of emissions, while nations like Vanuatu face severe consequences. The representative urged the Court to declare these actions unlawful, demand their cessation, and require reparations. He concluded by calling the case one of the most consequential in human history, imploring the Court to act decisively to protect future generations.

Attorney General Arnold Loughman of Vanuatu underscored the role of international law in addressing climate change and holding states accountable. He emphasized his constitutional duty to uphold the rights, freedoms, and sovereignty of Vanuatu, which are now under threat due to external actions. Despite Vanuatu’s negligible contribution to global emissions, the nation faces severe impacts that undermine its constitutional rights and self-determination. Loughman argued that states have clear obligations under international law to prevent environmental harm, reduce emissions, and uphold human rights. The failure of major emitters to meet these obligations constitutes a wrongful act. He called on the Court to affirm these violations and hold states accountable, stressing the survival of vulnerable nations like Vanuatu depends on decisive action.

Ilan Kiloe, speaking on behalf of the Melanesian Spearhead Group, highlighted the devastating impact of climate change on Melanesian communities. He described the cultural and spiritual unity of Melanesia, where people are intrinsically linked to their landscapes and ecosystems. Climate change has unraveled this connection, threatening the physical survival of communities and dismantling their governance systems, livelihoods, and cultural identities. Kiloe shared testimonies of loss from across Melanesia, detailing how climate change violates the right to self-determination, especially for colonized and non-self-governing peoples like the Kanak people of New Caledonia, West Papua, and Torres Strait Islanders. He stressed that the climate crisis perpetuates the historical injustice of colonial exploitation. Kiloe urged the Court to affirm the illegality of actions responsible for these harms and provide legal remedies to ensure the survival and dignity of Melanesian peoples.

Julian Aguon (Blue Ocean Law) emphasized the critical role of the right to self-determination in international law and how climate change violates this right. He described self-determination as fundamental, encompassing the right of peoples to determine their political status and pursue economic, social, and cultural development. Aguon explained how climate change has eroded self-determined ways of life in Melanesia, displacing communities, destroying resources, and threatening the existence of entire territories. He argued that states responsible for climate change have violated their obligations under international law, and self-determination must be understood dynamically to protect peoples at risk. Highlighting the cultural and spiritual significance of ancestral lands, Aguon called on the Court to reaffirm the rule of law and protect the right to self-determination for Melanesian peoples and humanity as a whole.

Professor Jorge Viñuales addressed the Court on the historical and ongoing failures of states to meet their obligations to prevent climate change and protect the environment. He outlined how a small number of states have contributed the majority of greenhouse gas emissions over the last 170 years, violating legal principles of due diligence and environmental protection. Viñuales cited international legal precedents affirming states’ obligations to prevent harm and reduce emissions. However, major emitters have expanded fossil fuel production and consumption, undermining these obligations. He described this conduct as a serious violation of international law, likening it to recognizing murder as unlawful while permitting genocide. Viñuales urged the Court to hold states accountable for their failures, emphasizing the catastrophic consequences for humanity and the planet.

Professor Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh focused on the legal consequences of states’ violations of international law related to climate change. She explained that actions such as issuing fossil fuel licenses and failing to regulate emissions constitute internationally wrongful acts. The principle of state responsibility requires that these violations have consequences, including cessation of harmful conduct, assurances of non-repetition, and reparations. Wewerinke-Singh emphasized the importance of holding responsible states accountable through proportional reparations, such as ecosystem restoration and compensation for irreversible harm. She highlighted the need for international cooperation to support small island states affected by climate change and to ensure justice. Wewerinke-Singh concluded by urging the Court to apply the law of state responsibility decisively to protect victims and address the global climate crisis.

Cynthia Houniuhi, delivered a heartfelt address on the existential threat posed by climate change and the failure of major emitters to act. Speaking as a custodian of her community’s ancestral memory, she emphasized the sacred connection between her people in the Solomon Islands and their land and environment. Climate change threatens to sever these ties, undermining their ability to protect the environment for future generations. Houniuhi criticized large-emitting states for perpetuating the crisis through fossil fuel production, turning international agreements like the Paris Agreement into tools benefiting polluters. She expressed the profound consequences of this inaction, jeopardizing the future of youth and vulnerable communities. Houniuhi called on the Court to hold major emitters accountable, restore hope, and guide humanity toward addressing this monumental challenge.

US withdrawal from the ICJ

As we have seen with the ongoing genocide in Palestine by Israel, the ICJ has no binding authority over countries that have either not ratified, or have withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice , with the most prominent being the United States, which effectively ceased to recognize ICJ jurisdiction after the Court ruled against it in the 1986 Nicaragua case. The U.S. withdrawal and other similar actions by states illustrate a deep tension in international law: the ICJ’s authority relies on voluntary consent, meaning that countries can opt out if rulings conflict with their national interests. While the ICJ can issue binding rulings for states that accept its jurisdiction, those rulings lack enforceability for non-parties like the United States. This undermines the universality of international law and weakens global frameworks, particularly in addressing transnational challenges like climate change, where the United States is by far the largest offender of climate abuse.

The United States’ non-participation in ICJ proceedings creates a paradoxical imbalance. Other member states remain bound by ICJ rulings, potentially exposing themselves to legal obligations and reparative measures, while the U.S. operates outside this framework. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh’s critique highlights how international institutions like the UNFCCC, intended as vehicles for collective action, have been compromised by large emitters and financial interests. This “capture” has turned these mechanisms into spaces that serve corporate and polluter agendas, sidelining meaningful reforms and diluting their capacity to hold states accountable. This is not a failure of international law or the UN Charter but rather the result of institutional weaknesses exploited by monied interests.

Climate Capture by the Investor-State

The capture of climate policy by the investor-state system is particularly significant. It reflects a broader phenomenon where binding trade agreements and investor-state dispute mechanisms frame climate action in terms of market-driven solutions like carbon credits, offsets, and trading schemes, ultimately reinforcing extractive systems. Intemerate accounting tries to offer solution-based approaches that circumvent the chokehold that the investor-state has on sound climate policy, offering a pathway to recalibrate this imbalance by shifting focus from these commodified metrics to ecological and social well-being. Unlike accounting schemes that can only monetize and exploit nature, intemerate accounting recalibrates the valuation of ecosystems based on their intrinsic and relational importance. By introducing variables that align economic activity with ecological restoration and community resilience, economies and corporations should be compelled to account for real-world environmental impacts rather than perpetuating harm through abstract legal frameworks.

From an international trade perspective, altering national accounting systems have transformative potential. It can reshape how climate financing and trade rules are structured, ensuring that resources flow directly to projects that enhance ecological stewardship rather than supporting extractive practices under the guise of “green growth.” By quantifying environmental and social costs within an accounting matrix, intemerate offsets might challenge the investor-state system to take accountability for its role in perpetuating ecological harm. This system could, for instance, redirect subsidies away from fossil fuel production toward regenerative initiatives or enforce liability for historical emissions through reparative trade and financial mechanisms. Furthermore, it introduces a voluntary participatory framework that empowers communities—especially in the Global South—to set their own ecological targets and define success on their terms.

Reset National Accounting

The intersection of international law and investor-state systems is critical. While institutions like the ICJ can theoretically declare the obligations of states under climate law, these enforcement gaps highlight the structural limitations of legal frameworks in confronting investor-state dominance. Programs like Intemerate accounting sidestep this gap by embedding justice and equity into the mechanisms of trade and investment, reframing climate action as a matter of ecological repair and social equity rather than market expansion. Moreover, it shifts the narrative away from profit-driven solutions to one rooted in solidarity with the most vulnerable communities, who have borne the brunt of climate change but have been sidelined in crafting its remedies.

Ultimately, the failures of frameworks like the UNFCCC are not inherent to international law but the result of systemic imbalances that privilege investor-state interests over ecological and social necessity. Intemerate accounting provides a way to redress these imbalances by challenging the investor-state system’s role in perpetuating climate inaction. It offers not only a critique of the current structures but also a forward-looking blueprint for transforming how we approach climate policy and trade in an era of ecological crisis.

Vanuatu is years ahead of other countries and the Melanesian Well-Being Indicators have already laid the foundation for how we account for Well-Being. Adjusting these indicators towards a value framework that can modulate national accounts is the next step.

BRICS+

The emergence of a new international trade currency by BRICS+ countries offers a transformative opportunity to reshape the foundations of global trade and finance. Unlike systems dominated by Wall Street and commodity markets, which often prioritize profit over people and exploit natural resources, this new paradigm can align trade practices with the intrinsic well-being of communities. By focusing on ecological markets that value resilience, environmental stewardship, and social equity, this shift could challenge the extractive systems that have historically dispossessed indigenous, poor, displaced, and vulnerable communities.

BRICS+ nations, with their diverse geographies and strong histories of treaty compliance, have the potential to champion a framework rooted in international law and ecological justice. This approach prioritizes long-term sustainability and the restoration of ecological systems over the short-term gains of resource extraction. Ecological markets in this context could redefine the metrics of trade, valuing not only the tangible outputs of communities but also their knowledge systems, biodiversity contributions, and cultural practices that sustain environmental health.

This shift toward ecological markets represents more than just an economic opportunity; it is a moral imperative. It challenges the neoliberal orthodoxy that places economic growth above all else and insists on a model of development that uplifts the most vulnerable. By decoupling trade currencies from exploitative commodity valuations, BRICS+ countries could pave the way for global economic systems that respect and protect the rights of indigenous and at-risk populations while fostering a healthier relationship with the planet.

Such a transition requires a robust regulatory framework to ensure that these markets are not co-opted by financial interests and remain rooted in the principles of fairness, equity, and sustainability. Intemerate accounting, with its emphasis on valuing ecological and social well-being, could serve as a cornerstone of this framework, ensuring that the new trade systems genuinely benefit communities rather than perpetuate cycles of dispossession and exploitation.