Making Banking Democratic/The New NAFTA
January 25, 2020
Alan Grayson/Coronavirus
February 8, 2020
Show all

All Hell Breaking Loose

It turns out that the American military establishment does not deny the climate crisis, which Ralph talks about with world security expert, Michael Klare, author of “All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change.” Also, Ralph answers listener questions and talks impeachment.

Professor Michael Klare is the author of 15 books including Resource Wars: Blood and Oil, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet, and The Race for What’s Left. He is the director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College. Professor Klare is also the defense correspondent for The Nation magazine. And his latest book is entitled, All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change.

“Right now, the major preoccupation of the U.S. military is to prepare for a future war with China. Well, I could tell you, based on the scientific evidence that the Chinese military is going to have zero time for fighting America in another decade or so, because China is going to be completely preoccupied with defending its shores against rising water and the rest of the country from spreading deserts, and drought and floods and fires.”
Professor Michael Klare, author of All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change

“In Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America, they [military planners] see a future in which agriculture collapses in those areas, sending huge waves of migration across continents, headed to this country, to Europe, along the way producing chaos [and] mass pandemics.”
Professor Michael Klare, author of All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon’s Perspective on Climate Change


  1. harold burbank says:

    i like klare but he is out of his field on climate. china will have all the ‘power’ it needs to defend itself, and does now. its great weakness is insufficient food. russia will fill that gap as needed.

  2. Be Grounded like Greta or fly on jets like Donald.

  3. Afdal Shahanshah says:

    It’s frankly insulting to the average person who is angry and disillusioned with politics to claim that what we have is democracy and then berate them for not liking it. What we have in America cannot be described as democracy by any metric. Not now and not at any point in American history. Although many have difficulty articulating exactly why, most people know deep down that our political system doesn’t deliver what they want. 1) People spend most of their waking lives working in private dictatorships being bossed around by employers. It would be naive to pretend that the decisions made by a minority of employers at work on a daily basis doesn’t affect the rest of social life. 2) It’s been empirically demonstrated that average public opinion has no effect whatsoever on public policy while the affluent and interest groups do (Gilens and Page, 2014). The evidence for this stems way back before Citizens United and McCutcheon v FEC legalized unlimited, invisible corporate bribery in elections. 3) Even the inventors of “democracy” disagreed that what we have is democracy. The ancient Athenians actually considered all electoral systems to be a form of oligarchy because only the affluent of society have the time and resources to run for office. To democracy’s inventors, only direct referenda by the public with officials selected through randomization is democracy.

    If you want to make a case for democracy, you need to start by acknowledging that this junk we use in the US isn’t what we’re striving for. Clearly, it doesn’t work at all. Only in an anti-democratic system does one need to get out on the streets every decade and basically scare their rulers into giving them something.

    • robert says:

      Its insulting but its nothing new. The only people making a case for democracy are propagandists or the ignorant.

    • robert says:

      Afdal, your comment is brilliant. You should write a history of the American Empire from the pilgrims to the present. The question of democracy needs to be examined for American high school students. Its their future that is at stake.

  4. Ben Leet says:

    This interview is a tour de force, meaning a dazzling performance between two intelligent oldsters who have all their marbles working well. What is missing? I sense that solving all this turmoil will require quiet minds with hearts of gold. I hope this also in engendered in the conversation.

  5. Mark Hughes says:

    Regarding the listener question at the end, the problem with believing that Tesla will somehow eliminate fossil fuels in car usage is it ignores that most electricity generated today is done so via burning coal, a fossil fuel. So unless said electricity for cars is generated from sun or wind, there’s still a large part that fossil fuels play in electric cars. Not to mention that our war machinery consumes far more fossil fuels than the citizenry for everyday usage. If you want to target the largest consumption of fossil fuels, start protesting war.

  6. Joe Tichenor says:

    ANOTHER HIGH-QUALITY INVESTIGATIVE SHOW well worth the time to listen. I especially like Ralph’s summation of the impeachment process. Does anyone else agree: WE NEED A NEW UPDATED CONSTITUTION providing for IMMEDIATE REMOVAL FROM OFFICE of any President/official of community management who defies a lawful subpoena of Congress; or who usurps the control of US spending policy, solely given to the Legislative Branch, NOT TO THE PRESIDENT??? ALSO we need a community management system based on laws and policies democratically decided, using the BEST WISDOM AVAILABLE… not the dumbed-down folderol of sociopathic personalities. It should prefer PRINCIPLES BEFORE PERSONALITIES, to borrow a phrase from the field of recovery. AND THATS WHAT WE NEED, recovery from the insanity of dictatorship masquerading as democracy… using simple methods that are WELL WITHIN OUR CAPABILITY as thinking, spiritual beings living on this beautiful oasis of life in the vast emptiness of space. PLEASE STOCK UP ON ESSENTIALS and be ready for the emergencies and troubles that are bound to come soon, as the traitorous Senate takes better care of criminals and perverts than the People it is supposed to serve.

  7. Glenn Velez says:

    During the discussion, Professor Klare said the Ebola and Zika viruses are mosquito-borne infections. The vector for the Zika virus is primarily the Aedes mosquito. The Ebola virus is transmitted initially by infected animals (e.g. bats, primates or other wild animals). According to the CDC, “there is no evidence that mosquitoes or other insects can transmit Ebola virus.”

  8. Don Harris says:

    Prof. Klare was introduced as presenting a unique take on climate.

    One thing in common with other takes on climate you have presented is that they are all takes on the symptoms of the War on Habitat.

    Please consider presenting a unique take on the solution to the War on Habitat.

    The major obstacle to implementing available, affordable solutions to the War on Habitat is big money controlling our political process.

    So the first step in any possible solution is to get the big money out of our political process.

    If citizens keep voting for big money candidates we will keep getting big money legislators.

    Citizens working together to demand small donor only candidates and enforcing that demand with their votes is the best way to get candidates to stop taking big money because it can be done right now under existing law. No need to elect candidates promising future legislation or amendments and waiting for the legislation or amendment to be passed and implemented.

    No candidate that takes big money to run their campaign can be considered serious when it comes to the War on Habitat as they are not taking action to eliminate the major obstacle to solutions to the war on Habitat.

    So the solution to the War on Habitat is for citizens to only vote for small donor only candidates.

    None of the current major party candidates are small donor only candidates.

    The small contribution candidates are not small donoronly candidates.

    There is no difference if one candidate takes 2000 dollars from one donor in one contribution or if another candidate takes 2000 dollars from one donor in many small contributions.

    A donor giving 50 dollars a week starting in early 2019 would have given around 2000 dollars by now.

    The size of the average contribution does not determine the size of the average donor, the percentage of small donors or the percentage of money a candidate gets from small donors vs. large donors.

    Many people are upset about the DNC decision to change the debate rules to allow Bloomberg in.

    Wouldn’t it be an interesting experiment if you were to suggest that those people get together and write the DNC (and maybe sign a petition) saying that if the DNC can change the rules to allow Bloomberg in they could also change the rules to only allow small donor candidates in the debates and these citizens will only vote for small donor candidates so they want the DNC to make this rule change.

    Do you think Bernie, Warren or any of the candidates would seize this opportunity and declare now they will run a small donor only campaign in the general election?

    Is it possible that these citizens also writing to Bernie, Warren or any of the candidates now saying the candidates will not get their primary votes or general election votes if they do not commit to run a small donor only campaign in the general election the candidate would seize the opportunity?

    Just 3% of the 130 million presidential election voters contributing an average of 100 dollars in contributions of 200 dollars or less would total around 500 million dollars.

    If a candidate making this commitment can’t get 3% of citizens to support them financially then we don’t deserve to get the big money out of politics.

    You have a unique opportunity to kill more than two birds with one stone.

    You can provide this take on a possible solution to the War on Habitat, provide Chris W with someone and an idea he hasn’t heard of along with the list of those you people and ideas you have presented, fulfill the statement you made on Washington Journal on 10-24-2018 that you would have me on the Radio Hour to discuss One Demand (an opportunity for citizens to work together to demand small donor only candidates), expose the DNC with the small donor debate demand, provide citizens with the first to step to solving many other problems as big money in our political process is the major obstacle to implementing available solutions to more problems than just the War on Habitat and provide Bernie, Warren and other candidates an incentive to take the next step from small contribution campaigns to small donor only campaigns all by just having me on the Radio Hour to discuss One Demand.

    Democracy is knocking with an opportunity.

    Will you answer the call?

  9. mlm says:

    thanks for the transcript!

  10. robert says:

    there is a consensus definition of the common good – its in the Preamble to the Constitution – but the problem is it is not attended to. Why? Because some of the rich [ some of the ~top 10%] do not agree with this consensus, and they have influence that you do not have: more generally, the rich rule: they have the power, they have the influence, and they [not the People] are credited and represented in domestic power politics [the media, the Courts, Congress and the Executive], so they do get heard, and are never held to account for the damage and death they advocate if not cause in the name of their alternative [Gross Inequity on the US Domestic side, Exceptionalism on the US foreign policy side]. All the People can do about this nightmare is protest, disinvest, and vote occasionally; such may result in some progress but I doubt domestic power politics will change much, that the Empire will fold its tents, and that climate change will be addressed.

  11. robert says:

    Dear Ralph:
    in the 1970s when Congress passed the environmental laws, it gave the US military sweeping “national security” exemptions in every US environmental law. Under these blanket exemptions the US military has polluted the waters and land and done zero clean ups. it has pumped massive amounts of hazardous air pollutants as well as CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere. Now they pretend to be concerned when their pollution including GHG emissions, harms their bases?
    Why dont you interview some experts about that? How about lobbying Congress to remove the military’s blanket pollution statutory exemptions, mandate that the freedom fighting US military immediately get pollution control permits, and immediately cease pumping GHGs into the atmosphere?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.