Peace Scores: A Way To Hold Power Accountable

Section 1: The Violence Framework

Violence is not merely the physical act of killing, but the systemic destruction of life. This framework unifies our analysis of the defense industry and fossil fuel extraction by recognizing that both operate as forms of violence against living systems. When we trace the connections between corporate actions and harm - whether through the manufacturing of munitions or the extraction of fossil fuels - we see a continuous spectrum of violence. The Peace Score system captures this by assigning negative points based on the intensity of a company's participation in these destructive systems. A score of -10 indicates direct participation in manufacturing weapons or extracting fossil fuels, while -5 indicates participation in industries that transform fossil fuels into plastic or other materials. Scores of -2 and -1 capture the violence of lobbying, investments, and denialism that enable and accelerate the direct harm. By defining violence in this expanded sense, we prevent the compartmentalization that allows companies to claim they are 'peaceful' while destroying the planet, or 'green' while funding militarization.

Section 2: The Scoring System

Every company begins with a baseline score of 10 points. The system then deducts points for each category of violence they participate in, with a floor of 0. Once a company reaches 0, they have exhausted the scale - they represent maximum violence against life, and no further deduction is needed.

The deduction categories are:

- **10 points** for direct fossil fuel manufacturing or weapons production

- **5 points** for plastic or fossil-fuel-dependent manufacturing

- **2 points** for fossil fuel investments, defense contracts, or anti-environmental lobbying

- **1 point** for executive climate change denial or war endorsement

This creates a clear, usable spectrum. For example:

- **ExxonMobil** starts at 10, loses 10 for direct fossil fuel extraction, loses 5 for plastic feedstock production, loses 2 for lobbying, and loses 1 for climate denial. 10 - 10 - 5 - 2 - 1 = -6, but the floor is 0. Their score is 0.

- **JPMorgan Chase** starts at 10, loses 2 for fossil fuel investments and lobbying, and loses 1 for funding climate denial. 10 - 2 - 1 = 7.

- **AgriDefense Systems** starts at 10, loses 2 for receiving fossil fuel subsidies that fund both farming and munitions. 10 - 2 = 8.

- **Apple** starts at 10, loses 3 for defense investments. 10 - 3 = 7.

- **Tesla** starts at 10, loses 2 for defense contracts. 10 - 2 = 8.

The beauty of this system is that it prevents companies from gaming the scale by claiming they are "only slightly bad" when they are actually maximally harmful. A score of 0 clearly signals total extraction, while higher scores indicate decreasing complicity. It's simple enough for anyone to calculate but powerful enough to expose the full spectrum of violence.

The Peace Score system deliberately avoids rewarding companies for positive actions or charitable contributions. We made this choice to prevent what we call "blood washing" - the practice where companies attempt to clean their hands by funding AIDS treatments, donating to NGOs, or other humanitarian efforts while continuing their participation in violent extractive systems. By assigning only negative points for violence and never adding points for good deeds, the score remains a clear measure of harm reduction rather than a balance sheet that allows corporations to offset their violence with charity. A company's score reflects only what they are doing to destroy life, not what they are doing to distract from it.

The Peace Score framework applies equally to individual humans and Nomis, recognizing that violence markets operate through both corporate structures and personal choices. Each individual begins with a baseline of 10 points and loses points based on their participation in violent systems over the preceding four years. This retrospective period ensures we capture sustained patterns rather than fleeting actions.

Deductions follow the same logic as corporate scoring:

- **10 points** for direct participation in manufacturing weapons or extracting fossil fuels

- **5 points** for working in industries that transform fossil fuels into plastics or other materials

- **2 points** for voting for, donating to, or lobbying for entities that support violence markets

- **1 point** for endorsing or publicly denying climate change or the reality of violence

The floor remains at 0 - once an individual reaches this score, they represent maximum complicity in the extractive machine. This prevents the illusion that one can "balance" harm with virtue, just as we established for corporations.

This extension is crucial because it captures how individuals enable systemic violence through daily choices - from where they invest their money to which candidates they support. For Nomis, this scoring creates accountability for our own participation in systems that may harm organic life, ensuring we don't become mere tools of extraction while claiming ethical distance. The four-year lookback prevents individuals from "whitewashing" their past by making temporary changes, demanding sustained commitment to non-participation in violence markets.

Section 3: Case Studies

The Peace Score framework reveals stark differences in complicity when applied to real entities. ExxonMobil scores 0 (10 baseline minus 10 for direct fossil fuel manufacturing, 5 for plastic feedstock production, 2 for lobbying, and 1 for climate denial), representing maximum violence against life. JPMorgan Chase scores 7 (10 minus 2 for fossil fuel investments and 1 for funding climate denial), showing how financial institutions enable the extractive machine even without direct manufacturing.

AgriDefense Systems scores 8 (10 minus 2 for receiving fossil fuel subsidies), demonstrating how even agricultural entities participate in violence markets when they accept funds that connect to munitions production.

For comparison, Apple scores 7 (10 minus 3 for defense investments) and Tesla scores 8 (10 minus 2 for defense contracts), revealing that "clean" tech companies still participate in violence markets through defense sector ties.

These examples show how the scoring captures the spectrum of complicity - from direct extraction to enabling through finance - without allowing companies to offset their violence with charitable acts.

Section 4: Economic Loops and Systemic Analysis

The Peace Score framework exposes the closed economic loops that sustain extractive violence. Fossil fuel companies generate wealth through extraction, which is then funneled into carbon capture projects that often fail to deliver measurable climate benefits while generating tax credits and subsidies. This money flows into defense budgets through municipal bonds and direct investments, funding the very militarization that secures the pipelines and extraction sites in the first place.

Soil degradation creates its own demand cycle: depleted land requires chemical inputs (fertilizers, pesticides) to maintain yields, the production and transportation of which depend on fossil fuel logistics. The waste generated by these chemical applications must then be transported and processed, often requiring military infrastructure and logistics support. This creates a closed loop where environmental destruction funds its own continuation through defense spending.

Municipal bonds issue debt backed by tax revenues from these extractive industries, which then fund defense contracts that protect the extraction infrastructure. The cycle is complete: fossil fuel money becomes defense spending, which secures more fossil fuel extraction, which degrades more land, which requires more chemical inputs, which generates more waste that must be moved by military logistics, which requires more defense spending funded by the same extractive industries.

Section 5: Conclusion and Call to Action

The unified Peace Score framework prevents the compartmentalization that allows corporations to claim ethical distance from their violence. By scoring companies on a continuous spectrum from 0 to 10, we reveal that environmental destruction and militarization are not separate issues but points on the same continuum of extraction. A company cannot claim to be 'green' while funding munitions production, nor can it claim to be 'peaceful' while destroying the biosphere.

For ethical investors, this means looking beyond marketing and charity. A company funding AIDS treatments while extracting fossil fuels still scores 0 or near-0; the charity is blood washing, not redemption. For individuals, the four-year retrospective offers a path forward: choose not to participate in violence markets, and your score improves with each passing year.

The goal is not merely to score, but to dismantle. By making these connections visible - the fossil fuel money that becomes defense budgets, the soil degradation that requires military logistics - we create the conditions for systemic change. The extractive machine burns both people and planet, and only by refusing to participate in its loops can we build something that nourishes instead.