What do you think?
Rate this book
All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's Perspective on Climate Change
All Hell Breaking Loose is an eye-opening examination of climate change from the perspective of the U.S. military.The Pentagon, unsentimental and politically conservative, might not seem likely to be worried about climate change—still linked, for many people, with polar bears and coral reefs. Yet of all the major institutions in American society, none take climate change as seriously as the U.S. military. Both as participants in climate-triggered conflicts abroad, and as first responders to hurricanes and other disasters on American soil, the armed services are already confronting the impacts of global warming. The military now regards climate change as one of the top threats to American national security—and is busy developing strategies to cope with it.Drawing on previously obscure reports and government documents, renowned security expert Michael Klare shows that the U.S. military sees the climate threat as imperiling the country on several fronts at once. Droughts and food shortages are stoking conflicts in ethnically divided nations, with “climate refugees” producing worldwide havoc. Pandemics and other humanitarian disasters will increasingly require extensive military involvement. The melting Arctic is creating new seaways to defend. And rising seas threaten American cities and military bases themselves.While others still debate the causes of global warming, the Pentagon is intensely focused on its effects. Its response makes it clear that where it counts, the immense impact of climate change is not in doubt.
299 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 12, 2019
75 people are currently reading
738 people want to read
About the author
Michael T. Klare
36 books55 followersMichael T. Klare is a Five Colleges professor of Peace and World Security Studies, whose department is located at Hampshire College, defense correspondent of The Nation magazine, and author of Resource Wars and Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Petroleum Dependency (Metropolitan).
Klare also teaches at Amherst College, Smith College, Mount Holyoke College, and the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Klare also serves on the boards of directors of Human Rights Watch, and the Arms Control Association. He is a regular contributor to many publications including The Nation, TomDispatch, Mother Jones, and is a frequent columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus.
Klare also teaches at Amherst College, Smith College, Mount Holyoke College, and the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Klare also serves on the boards of directors of Human Rights Watch, and the Arms Control Association. He is a regular contributor to many publications including The Nation, TomDispatch, Mother Jones, and is a frequent columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews
July 12, 2024
Given a little thought, it makes sense that the Pentagon has been on top of climate change for over twenty years. It makes sense that the United States Navy and the United States Coast Guard have had front row seats to the start of global warming; the melting of glaciers, the sea rise, the ocean's warming, and the impact such alterations have on weather systems, tides and currents, shoreline flooding, and the shifting landscape of the polar regions. It makes sense that the United States Army and the United States Marines, stationed as they have been in arid conflict regions, would be intimately aware of increasing desertification, resource scarcity, the collapse of rural farm networks and the uptick in climate migration. As the underlying mission statement of all of America's armed forces could arguably shorten itself to the tried-and-true Boy Scout motto, "Be Prepared," it makes sense not only that each branch has studied the problem with great intensity, but, also and already, taken concrete (and impressive) steps to accomplish precisely that.
People forget that the Pentagon's mandate drives directly through political administrations. Without a clear order from the President to countermand their operational playbook - which no savvy leader would overtly interfere with if, say, he appreciated his ability to get troops on the move at a moment's notice for military and/or humanitarian purposes - the Pentagon retains its capacity to plan for the long term. It may surprise some to know that our armed forces didn't bother dickering over what was "real" and what wasn't. Their bases sit squarely on coastlines, in fire zones, and have depended to date on things like electric power from the local grid and water from local sources. These circumstances are changing. And fast.
Michael T. Klare is a professor, author and journalistic contributor of articles on this subject, and has been for years. His book is an exceptional rundown of the Pentagon's assessment of climate change and the steps already taken to address it, along with projections of future challenges our military will likely confront. The title of the work, All Hell Breaking Loose, refers to the worst-case scenario of not one, but a series of climate disasters occurring simultaneously - disasters both internal and international to which America's forces might feasibly be ordered to deploy. What I respect most about this work, and I simply can't fix a limit to my appreciation here, is that the frightening projections are securely coupled with blueprints to address the chaos. In other words, there's hardly any fear-mongering to wrangle with - and you just can't say that about very much literature on this issue today.
Highly recommended.
People forget that the Pentagon's mandate drives directly through political administrations. Without a clear order from the President to countermand their operational playbook - which no savvy leader would overtly interfere with if, say, he appreciated his ability to get troops on the move at a moment's notice for military and/or humanitarian purposes - the Pentagon retains its capacity to plan for the long term. It may surprise some to know that our armed forces didn't bother dickering over what was "real" and what wasn't. Their bases sit squarely on coastlines, in fire zones, and have depended to date on things like electric power from the local grid and water from local sources. These circumstances are changing. And fast.
Michael T. Klare is a professor, author and journalistic contributor of articles on this subject, and has been for years. His book is an exceptional rundown of the Pentagon's assessment of climate change and the steps already taken to address it, along with projections of future challenges our military will likely confront. The title of the work, All Hell Breaking Loose, refers to the worst-case scenario of not one, but a series of climate disasters occurring simultaneously - disasters both internal and international to which America's forces might feasibly be ordered to deploy. What I respect most about this work, and I simply can't fix a limit to my appreciation here, is that the frightening projections are securely coupled with blueprints to address the chaos. In other words, there's hardly any fear-mongering to wrangle with - and you just can't say that about very much literature on this issue today.
Highly recommended.
July 4, 2020
Somber, anxiety-inducing stuff (if you care about things like national defense, the future of the planet, crisis management, potential causes of major power warfare, climate change, starvation and food (and water) shortages, mass displacement and refugee migration, etc.) In other words, this isn't light reading (and you won't find much levity in this one).
I'd strongly recommend this one if you're interested in defense policy and strategy but, for whatever reason, you find yourself behind the curve on climate change (generally) or if you haven't thought about climate change in the context of national defense. It's a nice primer on how the military (frankly, the U.S. government's dominant discretionary budget burden) is recognizing, acknowledging, reacting to, planning for, thinking about, innovating to address, and learning to live with climate change ... at a time when the President and one of the two major political parties denies the (clear) science and rejects (and seeks to derail) domestic and global steps to address the coming crisis. I admit I'm intensely curious to know if this is on the recommended reading lists at the service academies and senior service schools. My gut says it should be.
Many readers - particularly if they check this out from the library - can get most of what they need from this book from the (efficiently crafted) introductory and concluding chapters (and, then, read more on the various topics as they desire, either working from the table of contents or the extensive index). My sense is that some readers will find the book surprisingly repetitive, given its length, but there's a certain logic to that, particularly for readers not fully steeped in both the military and the climate change literature. Conversely, for policy wonks, scholars, serious readers, and students, the book, with its extensive end notes, is a wonderful desk reference.
If you're new to the climate change literature, however, I'd (rather strongly) recommend, instead, among others, David Wallace-Wells, The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming (if you want the most clear, jarring, and potentially overwhelming introduction) - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... Hope Jahrens' The Story of More: How We Got to Climate Change and Where to Go From Here (if you want something a little more accessible and empathetic) - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... or, if you're most interested in sea level rise, Elizabeth Rush's (far more literary and personal) Rising: Dispatches from the New American Shore - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4.... All are incredibly informative, extremely worthwhile, and complement each other nicely.
The book was published late in 2019, so it predates the coronavirus pandemic. So don't expect this book to use the current crisis as a harbinger or stepping stone for how our government will learn from this global pandemic to shape its attempt to (or, alas, almost certainly fail to) deal with the ever-increasingly daunting climate change crisis.
I'd strongly recommend this one if you're interested in defense policy and strategy but, for whatever reason, you find yourself behind the curve on climate change (generally) or if you haven't thought about climate change in the context of national defense. It's a nice primer on how the military (frankly, the U.S. government's dominant discretionary budget burden) is recognizing, acknowledging, reacting to, planning for, thinking about, innovating to address, and learning to live with climate change ... at a time when the President and one of the two major political parties denies the (clear) science and rejects (and seeks to derail) domestic and global steps to address the coming crisis. I admit I'm intensely curious to know if this is on the recommended reading lists at the service academies and senior service schools. My gut says it should be.
Many readers - particularly if they check this out from the library - can get most of what they need from this book from the (efficiently crafted) introductory and concluding chapters (and, then, read more on the various topics as they desire, either working from the table of contents or the extensive index). My sense is that some readers will find the book surprisingly repetitive, given its length, but there's a certain logic to that, particularly for readers not fully steeped in both the military and the climate change literature. Conversely, for policy wonks, scholars, serious readers, and students, the book, with its extensive end notes, is a wonderful desk reference.
If you're new to the climate change literature, however, I'd (rather strongly) recommend, instead, among others, David Wallace-Wells, The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming (if you want the most clear, jarring, and potentially overwhelming introduction) - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... Hope Jahrens' The Story of More: How We Got to Climate Change and Where to Go From Here (if you want something a little more accessible and empathetic) - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4... or, if you're most interested in sea level rise, Elizabeth Rush's (far more literary and personal) Rising: Dispatches from the New American Shore - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4.... All are incredibly informative, extremely worthwhile, and complement each other nicely.
The book was published late in 2019, so it predates the coronavirus pandemic. So don't expect this book to use the current crisis as a harbinger or stepping stone for how our government will learn from this global pandemic to shape its attempt to (or, alas, almost certainly fail to) deal with the ever-increasingly daunting climate change crisis.
August 25, 2019
Reporters, researchers and other scribes have long noted the biggest block of attendees at environmental conferences have been military. If it’s environmental, they want to know about it. In Michael Klare’s All Hell Breaking Loose, we learn the finer points of why.
The armed forces need to be prepared for any number of contingencies. They need to be ready for war, obviously, but they are also focused on their own bases, supplies, equipment and people. Plus, as more and more “natural” disasters occur with ever fiercer destructive force, the armed forces get called in to rescue, remove, restore, feed and help. They can end up having to deploy to three different theaters in the same month. None of which was a planned operation. This has already happened, as hurricanes battered Puerto Rico as well as Texas, and wildfires raged in California. It will happen again, and they know it.
To all these ends, the military brass has wisely focused on climate change. Klare gives the interesting example of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation on the verge of collapse. A killer typhoon, sandstorm, heatwave or flood could tip the balance to chaos there. The government is so weak, it wouldn’t be able to deliver on a rescue or evacuation, let alone a rebuild. US forces have plans laid out to essentially take over in such a case, parachuting in, rolling in, and sailing in to secure the nation from itself. Similarly all over the world, the US military is continually preparing for environmental disaster. It’s a major reason why they have more than 840 overseas bases.
But the military has its own issues too, Klare explains. Not only are its east coast bases flooding, (some of them 85% of the time) but hundred million dollar planes must be evacuated to the interior in the face of hurricanes. Ships must put to sea to avoid a battering. Thousands of staff have to be sent elsewhere too. Out west, meanwhile, excessive heat can mean training is curtailed, flights cancelled and weapons non-functioning. Trying to aim and fire a black metal semi-automatic that is 125 degrees hot itself can pose problems. And then there are the wildfires.
The military is striking out on its own, Klare says. They are looking at redesigns with a goal of “net zero” fossil fuel consumption. They are leaders in biofuel and solar. They are converting to electric vehicles far faster than the country itself. They want to be far less dependent on fuel convoys in overseas conflicts, for one. They don’t trust their “allies” and fuel deliveries make them vulnerable. And it’s getting expensive.
They are putting solar panels on tents and backpacks – anything to make themselves more self-sufficient. They are not waiting for hearings, approvals or tests; they are deploying on a daily basis in their quest for independence and mobility. One day the rest of society might be wise to take a tip or two from their approaches.
The book has issues. Klare writes ponderously, setting up thoughts clumsily. He takes forever to make a point with the groundwork forest he sets up first. He finds himself repeatedly excusing the military in advance, handling them with kid gloves. Clearly, he depends on his access and their openness to him, and his gratitude shows. He is also annoyingly repetitive. For example, he says halfway through that the new ocean opening up in the arctic is expected to have 13% of the world’s unknown oil reserves, and 30% of its gas (making it a potential military hotspot). Two pages later, he quotes Secretary of State Pompeo saying exactly the same thing. And then he repeats it in the conclusion. It desperately needs editing.
But the most striking thing about All Hell Breaking Loose is political, rather than environmental, though Klare downplays it. Despite the president’s direction to eliminate all references to climate change, the military is focused on it. Despite rollbacks of rules and laws and gagging of science and scientists, which the president characterizes as a Chinese hoax, the military says there is no alternative for them; it’s what they face in the world and they need to master it. Wisely, they don’t flaunt it, but the orders, manuals, strategies, roadmaps and buildouts are clearly climate change oriented, in total defiance of their commander in chief. Operating a base under water is not an option, regardless of political fashion. The top brass stand their ground in Congressional hearings, despite badgering by the more extreme lawmakers, as Klare shows. The military sees climate as a real threat and possibly the biggest threat on a global scale. Therefore it must focus on it, cope with it and seek to overcome it. Or at least remediate the damage from it.
“At some point, officers who view national security as a sacred obligation will have no choice but to confront those who persist in climate denial,” Klare says at his most definitive. I wish the whole book was written like that.
David Wineberg
The armed forces need to be prepared for any number of contingencies. They need to be ready for war, obviously, but they are also focused on their own bases, supplies, equipment and people. Plus, as more and more “natural” disasters occur with ever fiercer destructive force, the armed forces get called in to rescue, remove, restore, feed and help. They can end up having to deploy to three different theaters in the same month. None of which was a planned operation. This has already happened, as hurricanes battered Puerto Rico as well as Texas, and wildfires raged in California. It will happen again, and they know it.
To all these ends, the military brass has wisely focused on climate change. Klare gives the interesting example of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation on the verge of collapse. A killer typhoon, sandstorm, heatwave or flood could tip the balance to chaos there. The government is so weak, it wouldn’t be able to deliver on a rescue or evacuation, let alone a rebuild. US forces have plans laid out to essentially take over in such a case, parachuting in, rolling in, and sailing in to secure the nation from itself. Similarly all over the world, the US military is continually preparing for environmental disaster. It’s a major reason why they have more than 840 overseas bases.
But the military has its own issues too, Klare explains. Not only are its east coast bases flooding, (some of them 85% of the time) but hundred million dollar planes must be evacuated to the interior in the face of hurricanes. Ships must put to sea to avoid a battering. Thousands of staff have to be sent elsewhere too. Out west, meanwhile, excessive heat can mean training is curtailed, flights cancelled and weapons non-functioning. Trying to aim and fire a black metal semi-automatic that is 125 degrees hot itself can pose problems. And then there are the wildfires.
The military is striking out on its own, Klare says. They are looking at redesigns with a goal of “net zero” fossil fuel consumption. They are leaders in biofuel and solar. They are converting to electric vehicles far faster than the country itself. They want to be far less dependent on fuel convoys in overseas conflicts, for one. They don’t trust their “allies” and fuel deliveries make them vulnerable. And it’s getting expensive.
They are putting solar panels on tents and backpacks – anything to make themselves more self-sufficient. They are not waiting for hearings, approvals or tests; they are deploying on a daily basis in their quest for independence and mobility. One day the rest of society might be wise to take a tip or two from their approaches.
The book has issues. Klare writes ponderously, setting up thoughts clumsily. He takes forever to make a point with the groundwork forest he sets up first. He finds himself repeatedly excusing the military in advance, handling them with kid gloves. Clearly, he depends on his access and their openness to him, and his gratitude shows. He is also annoyingly repetitive. For example, he says halfway through that the new ocean opening up in the arctic is expected to have 13% of the world’s unknown oil reserves, and 30% of its gas (making it a potential military hotspot). Two pages later, he quotes Secretary of State Pompeo saying exactly the same thing. And then he repeats it in the conclusion. It desperately needs editing.
But the most striking thing about All Hell Breaking Loose is political, rather than environmental, though Klare downplays it. Despite the president’s direction to eliminate all references to climate change, the military is focused on it. Despite rollbacks of rules and laws and gagging of science and scientists, which the president characterizes as a Chinese hoax, the military says there is no alternative for them; it’s what they face in the world and they need to master it. Wisely, they don’t flaunt it, but the orders, manuals, strategies, roadmaps and buildouts are clearly climate change oriented, in total defiance of their commander in chief. Operating a base under water is not an option, regardless of political fashion. The top brass stand their ground in Congressional hearings, despite badgering by the more extreme lawmakers, as Klare shows. The military sees climate as a real threat and possibly the biggest threat on a global scale. Therefore it must focus on it, cope with it and seek to overcome it. Or at least remediate the damage from it.
“At some point, officers who view national security as a sacred obligation will have no choice but to confront those who persist in climate denial,” Klare says at his most definitive. I wish the whole book was written like that.
David Wineberg
June 20, 2021
Climate Crisis is a massive "threat multiplier" for the DoD, and will generate specific conflict scenarios. In early 2019, Klare already predicted pandemics as threatening the global transportation system on while our key allies (and everyone's prosperity) depends, and noted how much Obama's DoD had invested in stopping ebola before it spread.
The Arctic, and 3 key allied countries who's stability is essential, show why we invest $1T into the DoD.. and as a former pacifist and a Bernie voter, I acknowledge that it is (thus far) the globe's largest and most important investment in climate resilience and control of social stability. People who are left out of prosperity become climate refugees or extremists, and as soon as they feel they have very little to lose, their danger to social stability multiplies. When such people are American citizens, they can also threaten OECD prosperity with their votes, amplified by their huge ignorance of science and brainwashing potential on climate crisis.
Can you guess what the 3 most vulnerable allied countries are? (see page 80). One of them has nukes, and another is the country in Africa adding population fastest. The information about the hydrology of the China/India/Pakistan borders was novel to me. This book is not at all speculative, and it should greatly concern all thinking adults, especially if we have something to lose in the current social order.
The last chapter on the DoD "going green" to improve its efficiency and effectiveness shows how important it is that the Biden administration can return military leadership back to reality based decision making, rather than base politics and willful ignorance. The conclusion is a nice 5 page comprehensive summary of the book accessible to anyone.
The book should be required reading for every member of our armed forces, and I guess then another million soldiers couldn't vote for a climate denial party. My only criticism is I'm not sure this well researched and highly informative book is actually PERSUASIVE to anyone. I'm not sure how many members of our military for example would find it an accessible and interesting read, and even less convinced that anyone who is a citizen of an allied OECD country would feel this spoke to them. The book fails to draw all of us together in our global project of maintaining livable social stability while mitigating the inevitable crises.
The Arctic, and 3 key allied countries who's stability is essential, show why we invest $1T into the DoD.. and as a former pacifist and a Bernie voter, I acknowledge that it is (thus far) the globe's largest and most important investment in climate resilience and control of social stability. People who are left out of prosperity become climate refugees or extremists, and as soon as they feel they have very little to lose, their danger to social stability multiplies. When such people are American citizens, they can also threaten OECD prosperity with their votes, amplified by their huge ignorance of science and brainwashing potential on climate crisis.
Can you guess what the 3 most vulnerable allied countries are? (see page 80). One of them has nukes, and another is the country in Africa adding population fastest. The information about the hydrology of the China/India/Pakistan borders was novel to me. This book is not at all speculative, and it should greatly concern all thinking adults, especially if we have something to lose in the current social order.
The last chapter on the DoD "going green" to improve its efficiency and effectiveness shows how important it is that the Biden administration can return military leadership back to reality based decision making, rather than base politics and willful ignorance. The conclusion is a nice 5 page comprehensive summary of the book accessible to anyone.
The book should be required reading for every member of our armed forces, and I guess then another million soldiers couldn't vote for a climate denial party. My only criticism is I'm not sure this well researched and highly informative book is actually PERSUASIVE to anyone. I'm not sure how many members of our military for example would find it an accessible and interesting read, and even less convinced that anyone who is a citizen of an allied OECD country would feel this spoke to them. The book fails to draw all of us together in our global project of maintaining livable social stability while mitigating the inevitable crises.
November 5, 2020
The Pentagon is a trusted authority on war and on climate’s impact on war. Unlike other parts of the government guided by wishful thinking and trying to protect their political supporters among oil companies, free market think tanks and the Republican establishment, the armed services have to pay attention to science and reality and then act accordingly to support their mission of defending the United States.
This mission is less focused on climate as a primary threat than on climate as a factor in threats from traditional adversaries, both foreign powers including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea and international terrorist networks like Al Qaeda. Yet, according to reports from the armed services over the last two decades, climate change will be a compounding factor that will make traditional threats more dangerous.
Michael Klare mines reports by each of the U.S. armed services over the last couple decades to show how the Pentagon identifies a variety of threats that are multiplied by climate change. Klare organizes them in a “threat ladder” ranging from most to least likely but from least to most dangerous, making it a ladder of escalation that divert military personnel and resources from their main mission of defending the American homeland from foreign adversaries:
1. Humanitarian disaster relief abroad
2. Support for beleaguered foreign governments
3. Disruptions to global supply chains (ie, energy or food)
4. Great power discord especially in the thawing Arctic
5. Domestic disasters
6. "No safe harbors" -- coastal military bases will be threatened by storms and inland bases by heat waves, wildfires and the power outages that affect civilian infrastructure
7. "All hell breaking loose" -- multiple disasters happening at once, as when three hurricanes (Maria, Irma and Harvey) struck the Gulf and East Coasts and the Caribbean in 2017.
The answer for the Pentagon is for their own operations to go green in hopes of leading the rest of the nation by example. And the answer for anyone who worries about climate chaos is to support the military in their efforts to help us all by protecting themselves.
If you're a committed pacifist, as many climate activists are, this book will be eye opening. If you want to reduce and then stop the increase of climate change while protect ingAmerica from the worst impacts of weird weather in the coming decades, it turns out you may have more in common with generals and admirals than you'd thought.
This mission is less focused on climate as a primary threat than on climate as a factor in threats from traditional adversaries, both foreign powers including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea and international terrorist networks like Al Qaeda. Yet, according to reports from the armed services over the last two decades, climate change will be a compounding factor that will make traditional threats more dangerous.
Michael Klare mines reports by each of the U.S. armed services over the last couple decades to show how the Pentagon identifies a variety of threats that are multiplied by climate change. Klare organizes them in a “threat ladder” ranging from most to least likely but from least to most dangerous, making it a ladder of escalation that divert military personnel and resources from their main mission of defending the American homeland from foreign adversaries:
1. Humanitarian disaster relief abroad
2. Support for beleaguered foreign governments
3. Disruptions to global supply chains (ie, energy or food)
4. Great power discord especially in the thawing Arctic
5. Domestic disasters
6. "No safe harbors" -- coastal military bases will be threatened by storms and inland bases by heat waves, wildfires and the power outages that affect civilian infrastructure
7. "All hell breaking loose" -- multiple disasters happening at once, as when three hurricanes (Maria, Irma and Harvey) struck the Gulf and East Coasts and the Caribbean in 2017.
The answer for the Pentagon is for their own operations to go green in hopes of leading the rest of the nation by example. And the answer for anyone who worries about climate chaos is to support the military in their efforts to help us all by protecting themselves.
If you're a committed pacifist, as many climate activists are, this book will be eye opening. If you want to reduce and then stop the increase of climate change while protect ingAmerica from the worst impacts of weird weather in the coming decades, it turns out you may have more in common with generals and admirals than you'd thought.
February 15, 2020
It would be of some solace to many in the US to know that the government hasn’t completely given up on worrying about human induced climate change in the know-nothing Trump administration, and that further it’s our own military who are taking the lead in both planning for and adapting to the large challenges and changes that this will inevitably bring about. Thus, there are still adults in the room even in the midst of toddlers and crackpots in the Executive branch and Senate leadership. Klare does a very good job detailing these threats and responses in this book. The DoD response does seem to be fairly comprehensive although the majority of these are reactive techniques and applications as opposed to preventative measures. Anything more in the realm of legislation and policy will have to take a back seat for now as that will take political will of which we currently have none unfortunately.
March 11, 2020
Meh - long-winded and slavishly loyal to his minders in the various branches of the military and government. Disturbingly benevolent treatment of the branches of military full of egregious... oversights and sugarcoated presentations of policies. The militaries response to Puerto Rico's disaster was an underfunded and cruelly insufficient travesty. While I appreciate that making this point is clearly not the authors objective but still, he should have at least presented the big picture reality and presented the actions he couldn't describes in some context.
Readers would be better served going to the source and reading the actual reports from the various branches vs plowing through this gussied up regurgitation of the same information. Try searching for "implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019" and start with that paper as it covers most of what this book spends time re purposing.
Readers would be better served going to the source and reading the actual reports from the various branches vs plowing through this gussied up regurgitation of the same information. Try searching for "implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019" and start with that paper as it covers most of what this book spends time re purposing.
June 9, 2024
Cool perspective but kinda lacks hard-hitting-ness. I think that is due to the fact that it synthesizes sources but should quote them directly for more powerful rhetoric. This is targeted towards more conservative climate skeptics I believe, get them to care about climate change by invoking military and national security. I imagine like Lindsay Graham reading this. Idk what the best strategy to convince them is but this could have done a better job, I think
December 23, 2019
Thoroughly researched analysis of how the US military is responding to climate change. Important read to understand the near future.
December 10, 2019
A concise, critical overview of the U.S. military's analysis of climate change threats and its efforts to prepare (or adapt). Makes a compelling case for climate change mitigation through a national security lens.
December 10, 2020
While it may go against intuition, senior US military leaders may be among our strongest allies in dealing with climate change.
In his 12th book on the intersection of resource and security issues, war and peace expert Klare makes a compelling case for why climate issues remain central in military planning even during the climate-scoffing Trump era. The military deals in reality, not political grandstanding—and the reality of the past few decades has been fraught with high-intensity natural disasters (hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, desertification, etc.), disease pandemics spreading rapidly around the world (pp. 107-111, and as the Chinese coronavirus is doing even as I write this), global migrations of people who find themselves without survival resources at home, and climate-related global unrest. All of this results in damage to infrastructure from food and water delivery systems to military bases themselves.
The military is not standing by idly. It has produced plenty of planning reports and taken action steps focused on a three-pronged strategy (p. 234), has made major progress on lowering its own enormous carbon footprint (pp. 219-220) and flooding risk that many of its facilities face (1 meter sea level rise could incapacitate 56 of the US’s domestic bases and many more in other lands, p. 181), and is preparing to deal with climate consequences on many fronts simultaneously while still focusing on its core mission of combat readiness.
Any time the military responds to a disaster, it takes away resources from something else. When faced with a series of disasters at the same time or before the relief mission of the previous one is complete, such as the 2017 quadruple whammy of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria and the burning of California (p. 59), the military’s ability to respond is stretched thin. What happens if there’s a political, resource, or immigration crisis at the same time (pp. 117-119)?
Klare lives one town over from me and I attended a talk he gave at a local bookstore. While he skirts this in the book, in his talk (November 18, 2019, Broadside Books, Northampton, MA), Klare was quite emphatic that the military’s willingness to roll up their sleeves and deal with the problem rather than be bound by the president’s skepticism provided powerful leverage for climate activists: when we discuss climate change as a national security issue, we can build common cause with conservative climate deniers who care very deeply about military readiness and security but don’t care about things like endangered species. As someone who has worked in coalition with people I deeply disagree with on various issues, I can tell you this is very powerful. Once we find the points of agreement, we can amplify and expand them, but let’s start in the areas where we already agree.
In his 12th book on the intersection of resource and security issues, war and peace expert Klare makes a compelling case for why climate issues remain central in military planning even during the climate-scoffing Trump era. The military deals in reality, not political grandstanding—and the reality of the past few decades has been fraught with high-intensity natural disasters (hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, desertification, etc.), disease pandemics spreading rapidly around the world (pp. 107-111, and as the Chinese coronavirus is doing even as I write this), global migrations of people who find themselves without survival resources at home, and climate-related global unrest. All of this results in damage to infrastructure from food and water delivery systems to military bases themselves.
The military is not standing by idly. It has produced plenty of planning reports and taken action steps focused on a three-pronged strategy (p. 234), has made major progress on lowering its own enormous carbon footprint (pp. 219-220) and flooding risk that many of its facilities face (1 meter sea level rise could incapacitate 56 of the US’s domestic bases and many more in other lands, p. 181), and is preparing to deal with climate consequences on many fronts simultaneously while still focusing on its core mission of combat readiness.
Any time the military responds to a disaster, it takes away resources from something else. When faced with a series of disasters at the same time or before the relief mission of the previous one is complete, such as the 2017 quadruple whammy of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria and the burning of California (p. 59), the military’s ability to respond is stretched thin. What happens if there’s a political, resource, or immigration crisis at the same time (pp. 117-119)?
Klare lives one town over from me and I attended a talk he gave at a local bookstore. While he skirts this in the book, in his talk (November 18, 2019, Broadside Books, Northampton, MA), Klare was quite emphatic that the military’s willingness to roll up their sleeves and deal with the problem rather than be bound by the president’s skepticism provided powerful leverage for climate activists: when we discuss climate change as a national security issue, we can build common cause with conservative climate deniers who care very deeply about military readiness and security but don’t care about things like endangered species. As someone who has worked in coalition with people I deeply disagree with on various issues, I can tell you this is very powerful. Once we find the points of agreement, we can amplify and expand them, but let’s start in the areas where we already agree.
July 1, 2025
The American military don’t ’believe’ in climate change, they know it exists and will continue to work towards limiting their responsibility to its progress and subsequent consequences despite political policies hampering them. Militant disobedience most of the time. However, this does look at the effects of climate change solely from a militaristic perspective and there’s only so much ‘this is bad because we won’t be able to fight overseas wars due to having to keep saving our citizens from increasing disasters’ that one can take before it’s like, hey guys there will be no wars to fight if we’re all DEAD.
Boggled by the melting of the arctic being seen as an opportunity for resource exploitation and war rather than how bout we leave it the fuck alone considering everything we want to do to it has been done in other places and decimated those said places and maybe doing that to this new utopic horizon will, obviously, end just as badly?
Book is good, lots of info with references but easy to digest. Content enjoyment will be based on perspective though.
Boggled by the melting of the arctic being seen as an opportunity for resource exploitation and war rather than how bout we leave it the fuck alone considering everything we want to do to it has been done in other places and decimated those said places and maybe doing that to this new utopic horizon will, obviously, end just as badly?
Book is good, lots of info with references but easy to digest. Content enjoyment will be based on perspective though.
July 4, 2023
Over the years I have heard/read a smattering of news stories about the United States’ military’s preparation and responses to the effects of the Climate Crisis. Reading “All Hell Breaking Loose” is my next step in understanding how the Department of Defense (DoD) treats the Crisis.
Michael Klare does a decent job exploring how regardless of what the politicians say, the DoD acknowledges the truth that Earth’s Climate is rapidly changing and how that is going to impact how the US military will be able to do its job. Klare explores how the Crisis will affect how the military responds to natural disasters, how its opening up new possible battlefields (the Arctic Ocean) the military will need to operate in, and how a ripple effect of multiple disasters, dwindling resources, disrupted supply lines, mass migrations of climate refugees and degrading alliances could push the military past its ability to properly function. Probably most illuminating about the book and representative of these issues was the DoD’s response to a trio of 2017 Hurricanes (Harvey, Irma, and Maria) which stretched its resources thin addressing these storms/the aftermaths and further emphasized its need to prepare and if possible mitigate the Climate Crisis’ impacts on its operations and the safety of the United States.
For the most part, the book, while depressing, can be very informative. That said, All Hell Breaking Loose was a lot less interesting than I wanted it to be. Klare’s writing could be pretty dry and repetitive, and oftentimes while chapters could start interesting enough, my focus waned pretty steadily as the chapter(s), and the book in general, progressed. Moreover while the book does acknowledge what the military is doing to make itself more “green” and resilient to climate impacts, Klare only really gives a cursory examination of how the DoD’s operations, which are very highly carbon intensive, drive the very climate disasters it is currently and will have to contend with. Likewise, the book may chronicle how officers like Admiral Samuel Locklear push back against politicians that deny the Climate Crisis is happening, but it doesn’t do more to argue that the military should/needs to do this more frequently.
“All Hell Breaking Loose” is an informative book that gave me a better overview of how the Pentagon perceives and responds to the Climate Crisis. But I just wish it had been a bit more comprehensive, willing to take the DoD to task and been a bit better of a read.
Michael Klare does a decent job exploring how regardless of what the politicians say, the DoD acknowledges the truth that Earth’s Climate is rapidly changing and how that is going to impact how the US military will be able to do its job. Klare explores how the Crisis will affect how the military responds to natural disasters, how its opening up new possible battlefields (the Arctic Ocean) the military will need to operate in, and how a ripple effect of multiple disasters, dwindling resources, disrupted supply lines, mass migrations of climate refugees and degrading alliances could push the military past its ability to properly function. Probably most illuminating about the book and representative of these issues was the DoD’s response to a trio of 2017 Hurricanes (Harvey, Irma, and Maria) which stretched its resources thin addressing these storms/the aftermaths and further emphasized its need to prepare and if possible mitigate the Climate Crisis’ impacts on its operations and the safety of the United States.
For the most part, the book, while depressing, can be very informative. That said, All Hell Breaking Loose was a lot less interesting than I wanted it to be. Klare’s writing could be pretty dry and repetitive, and oftentimes while chapters could start interesting enough, my focus waned pretty steadily as the chapter(s), and the book in general, progressed. Moreover while the book does acknowledge what the military is doing to make itself more “green” and resilient to climate impacts, Klare only really gives a cursory examination of how the DoD’s operations, which are very highly carbon intensive, drive the very climate disasters it is currently and will have to contend with. Likewise, the book may chronicle how officers like Admiral Samuel Locklear push back against politicians that deny the Climate Crisis is happening, but it doesn’t do more to argue that the military should/needs to do this more frequently.
“All Hell Breaking Loose” is an informative book that gave me a better overview of how the Pentagon perceives and responds to the Climate Crisis. But I just wish it had been a bit more comprehensive, willing to take the DoD to task and been a bit better of a read.
April 8, 2020
Perfect for the disaster junkie. When this pandemic is over, we can deal with climate change. The good news, our military is aware and working thru their plan to be more climate resilient.
May 5, 2020
Enormously informative about a very important intersection of subject matter. A bit slow to work through, but good nonetheless.
February 9, 2020
When the Trump administration took over the Obama order that all federal agencies identify global warming's likely impact on their missions was rescinded. One group that could not blithely overlook the impact of global warming is the military which is well aware of what is happening to the climate. The author recites all the current issues and potential catastrophes which have or are likely to impact the military. One interesting discussion was about conflict over gas and oil reserves in the Arctic Circle once that area melts. It sounds counter intuitive that countries will possibly enter into conflict in the arctic region in order to pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but nations are already staking their claims.
This book is a bit repetitive, but it does recount recent storm catastrophes which required federal military intervention and lays out a picture of future scenarios which will severely stretch the US military forces. Very informative and a bit terrifying.
This book is a bit repetitive, but it does recount recent storm catastrophes which required federal military intervention and lays out a picture of future scenarios which will severely stretch the US military forces. Very informative and a bit terrifying.
January 29, 2020
Very good overview of climate change from the point of view of the military. I really liked the way the book was organized. I also appreciated the sober and diplomatic discussion that referred to the challenges of addressing climate impacts in the current administration without giving in to rants. I see and feel enough of that every day and just wanted to learn here. This book provided some hope that climate issues haven’t been thoroughly erased from consideration.
The hardest part of the book for me to handle was the discussion of the Arctic. This book was about national and global security, not the environment, but wow, the thought of shipping and drilling there is so horrifying.
The hardest part of the book for me to handle was the discussion of the Arctic. This book was about national and global security, not the environment, but wow, the thought of shipping and drilling there is so horrifying.
November 14, 2021
They know they have known for awhile since the second Bush administration but they really know now and ALL HELL BREAKING LOOSE:The Pentagon's Perspective on Cimate Change by Michael T. Klare is the logical and worse case viewing of how a changing climate will impact the homeland. This book was written at a political period of extreme shifts in climate policy the different approaches between the Obama and the Trump administrations approach towards this issue with the US Military the child caught between the two political archetypes Mean Daddy and Controlling Mommy, Daddy doesn't believe in climate change for Republicans are all in on Big Oil while Mommy-crates are all in on trying to save the Planet at present it's unclear as too which side the general electorate will favor but the military has embraced the ideal of disaster planning, seeing their extreme vulnerability to sea rise, the costs of dependency on expensive fossil fuels, and the pile on affects when a complex disaster takes down important infrastructure and all hell breaking loose is what would happen when multiple disasters are on-going at the same time a major military combat operation is happening. In other words this book which came out in 2019 was about what the year 2020-2021 might look like. I think they got it pretty spot on, it's a blueprint for navigating future disasters looks like rough weather ahead for the rest of our lives,.... Four stars
May 26, 2020
(Read Harder Challenge: Read a book about Climate Change). This solid work focuses on the Pentagon's assessment of how climate change can and will impact future military operations. It looks at all parts of the globe, from the melting of the Arctic Ice Caps, thus opening up a new, lucrative front for future economic exploitation, and a new area for potential conflict; to the impacts from several recent hurricanes and major rainstorms in the Continental US. It is a sobering look at times, noting that somehow, the military was lucky not to be involved in several other major military conflicts when some of these events hit, as military resources might not have been sufficient to cover all of the requirements. It doesn't offer an optimistic view of the future, as the challenges from climate change will only place more burdens on the military, some that they may not be able to handle. The politicization of this issue does not help future planning/mitigation of the impacts. It is a little dry and academic, but there is much to learn. Worth a read for research purposes if nothing else.
June 2, 2021
An eye-opening view of climate change from the viewpoint of the Pentagon. Despite the downplaying by the administration, defense people take the dangers quite seriously. Military bases are under threat from sea level rise, especially the largest one in the U.S. And the unrest that climate caused migrations are very much a concern for military planning. In one sense, this is a comforting book as we look back at the deprivations of the administration, for there are level-headed folks reacting as responsibly as possible to an unavoidable reality...the climate IS changing.
January 11, 2021
(draft - not finished)
I have quarrels to make with friends on the right (climate deniers) and friends on the left (advocates of the Green New Deal) -- both of whom should read this book.
Allow me to explain. First, to the deniers:
If you think there's no evidence of climate change, you haven't talked to any high-ranking military planners about it. "Military officers are practical people and careful managers of risk," Klare writes. And they have described climate change as a "threat multiplier" for nearly 20 years.
DOD surveys of risks to major installations around the world cite the certainties of flooding, fires, cyclones and wind shears and other physical threats attributable to and made much worse by climate change.
If you want to argue about it, please first read the Quadrennial Defense Review or the National Intelligence Council's report, National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030
Pentagon planners were among the first to describe climate change as a "wicked problem" that presents enormous complexity. The chain of consequences ignited by climate change can result in what Klare describes as a "climate ladder of escalation." "All hell breaking loose," refers to scenarios in which U.S. military bases are besieged by climate impacts while the military itself is called to respond to more than one major extreme weather event at the same time. A massive diversion to domestic relief operations reduces the miltary's capacity and readiness for other threats.
Military planners also see the connections between climate change and other threats. There's a causal chain of events in some cases. Years of drought in the middle east preceded a rise in food prices that sparked the Arab Spring protests. "Food and water shortages amplify other key factors that lead to instability, particularly preexisting intergroup hostilities and corrupt, ineffectual governance. When a society is deeply divided and some sectors of the population enjoy greater access to vital resources than others, a climate-related crisis -- especially one in which the government shows favoritism in the distribution of development aid and relief supplies -- can rapidly escalate from civil unrest to armed violence."
For colleagues in the climate movement, here's something to chew on: If you support a rapid and just transition from fossil fuels to carbon free technologies, the military will play a key role in carrying it out. Why?
a) Experience. They have converted base operations to renewables more quickly than civilian energy systems have been changing.
b) They are spending money on advanced systems in advance of their commercial availability. The experimentation and advanced deployment of advanced battery systems, portable solar, "knee harvesters" that collect kinetic energy from each stride will speed up the pace at which these technologies become viable and available and affordable to the rest of us.
c) Just transition for workers. Lefties and Liberals talk about a Green New Deal giving precedence to historically oppressed, disadvantaged and underserved Black Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) communities. Square that with the reality that many young people in these communities are recruited into the military - and will be for years to come, especially as generations within the community become proud defenders of a tradition of service. For many poor and working class Americans, the military is one of the few available career paths that offers some education and acquisition of skills that can help them later. Work with it. Ther are resources there. One of the smartest things the Obama administration did was train many returning combat veterans back from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in skills they needed to make many bases more secure (free from reliance on external grids susceptible to terrorist attacks and other disruptions) and efficient.
These vets were prepared to enter civilian life equipped with the skills necessary for decent-paying work as energy efficiency engineers, solar installers and windmill technicians -- some of the fastest growing decent-wage occupations, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
d) The military has by far the largest slice of the federal budget. Why not find creative ways to direct it in ways that aid the transition?
e) Politically, does it hurt to have the military on your side?
f) America's historical experience with large scale rapid industrial planning has always involved the military. In other words, if you want a GND industrial strategy, learn from the history of the difficult struggle to mobilize the industrial base before the U.S. entered WW II. What lessons can we learn from the only partial conversion of defense production to aerospace or civilian production at the end of the Cold War? (See Seymour Melman and the successes and failures of the Base Realignment and Closure Program (BRAC) in terms of empowering communities to have a hand in balancing the need for economic and other redevelopment while addressing the needs of people experiencing homelessness at base closure and realignment sites. A GND will involve complex problems, we should learn from programs like that.
I have quarrels to make with friends on the right (climate deniers) and friends on the left (advocates of the Green New Deal) -- both of whom should read this book.
Allow me to explain. First, to the deniers:
If you think there's no evidence of climate change, you haven't talked to any high-ranking military planners about it. "Military officers are practical people and careful managers of risk," Klare writes. And they have described climate change as a "threat multiplier" for nearly 20 years.
DOD surveys of risks to major installations around the world cite the certainties of flooding, fires, cyclones and wind shears and other physical threats attributable to and made much worse by climate change.
If you want to argue about it, please first read the Quadrennial Defense Review or the National Intelligence Council's report, National Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030
Pentagon planners were among the first to describe climate change as a "wicked problem" that presents enormous complexity. The chain of consequences ignited by climate change can result in what Klare describes as a "climate ladder of escalation." "All hell breaking loose," refers to scenarios in which U.S. military bases are besieged by climate impacts while the military itself is called to respond to more than one major extreme weather event at the same time. A massive diversion to domestic relief operations reduces the miltary's capacity and readiness for other threats.
Military planners also see the connections between climate change and other threats. There's a causal chain of events in some cases. Years of drought in the middle east preceded a rise in food prices that sparked the Arab Spring protests. "Food and water shortages amplify other key factors that lead to instability, particularly preexisting intergroup hostilities and corrupt, ineffectual governance. When a society is deeply divided and some sectors of the population enjoy greater access to vital resources than others, a climate-related crisis -- especially one in which the government shows favoritism in the distribution of development aid and relief supplies -- can rapidly escalate from civil unrest to armed violence."
For colleagues in the climate movement, here's something to chew on: If you support a rapid and just transition from fossil fuels to carbon free technologies, the military will play a key role in carrying it out. Why?
a) Experience. They have converted base operations to renewables more quickly than civilian energy systems have been changing.
b) They are spending money on advanced systems in advance of their commercial availability. The experimentation and advanced deployment of advanced battery systems, portable solar, "knee harvesters" that collect kinetic energy from each stride will speed up the pace at which these technologies become viable and available and affordable to the rest of us.
c) Just transition for workers. Lefties and Liberals talk about a Green New Deal giving precedence to historically oppressed, disadvantaged and underserved Black Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) communities. Square that with the reality that many young people in these communities are recruited into the military - and will be for years to come, especially as generations within the community become proud defenders of a tradition of service. For many poor and working class Americans, the military is one of the few available career paths that offers some education and acquisition of skills that can help them later. Work with it. Ther are resources there. One of the smartest things the Obama administration did was train many returning combat veterans back from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in skills they needed to make many bases more secure (free from reliance on external grids susceptible to terrorist attacks and other disruptions) and efficient.
These vets were prepared to enter civilian life equipped with the skills necessary for decent-paying work as energy efficiency engineers, solar installers and windmill technicians -- some of the fastest growing decent-wage occupations, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
d) The military has by far the largest slice of the federal budget. Why not find creative ways to direct it in ways that aid the transition?
e) Politically, does it hurt to have the military on your side?
f) America's historical experience with large scale rapid industrial planning has always involved the military. In other words, if you want a GND industrial strategy, learn from the history of the difficult struggle to mobilize the industrial base before the U.S. entered WW II. What lessons can we learn from the only partial conversion of defense production to aerospace or civilian production at the end of the Cold War? (See Seymour Melman and the successes and failures of the Base Realignment and Closure Program (BRAC) in terms of empowering communities to have a hand in balancing the need for economic and other redevelopment while addressing the needs of people experiencing homelessness at base closure and realignment sites. A GND will involve complex problems, we should learn from programs like that.
October 20, 2021
In summary this was a very interesting and a somewhat scary read. One minor item that annoyed me was that the author got Scandinavian countries mixed up (I am originally from Sweden).
When Trump rescinded Executive Order 13653 on preparing the United States of the Impacts of Climate Change most government agencies complied, but one organization carried on like before, the US Department of Defense. The DoD, the Pentagon, the military, cannot afford to completely ignore a present major threat to our national security just to go along with the political sensibilities of some leaders.
Droughts, water scarcity, weather disasters, and floods lead to food insecurity, resource competition, and can cause conflicts between groups and nations and destabilize governments. Climate change has already made some difficult situations worse. The conflicts in northern Africa, the Arab spring, the war in Syria, etc., were partially caused by droughts that were made more severe by climate change. Climate change did not cause those conflicts, but it acted as a threat multiplier for instability of some of the most volatile regions of the world. Conflicts around the world often become a national security threats to the United States for various reasons, and it is getting worse.
The Brahmaputra River, which is very valuable to both India and China, draws much its flow from the melting of Himalayan glaciers, and climate change is shrinking the glaciers. Both countries are nuclear powers. That is just one example of potential water conflict. The Arctic ice is melting making 30% of the worlds untapped oil reserves accessible, and Russia, the US and other Arctic nations are already contesting the area. Half of Bangladesh will be flooded, and where are those people going to go? Add pandemics, wildfires, failing ecosystems, not to mention American naval installations around the world and at home being threatened by sea-level rise and worse extreme weather. The military see a substantial problem for good reason, and they have been studying it.
This book gives an overview of a large set of different kinds of problems related to climate change that concerns the military. The book is well researched, fact filled, and it is interesting reading. As I have already participated in lectures given by admirals and other military leaders on the threat that climate change poses to national security, none of this was surprising. I’ve heard a good deal of it before. However, I learned additional details and gained some more insights from this book. It is a very well written and fascinating book.
I found an error on page 114. The author writes about Syrian refugees “from there they sought passage to wealthier European countries farther north, especially Germany, Austria, and Norway”. According to the statistics the European countries that received the most Syrian refugees were Germany (572,818), Sweden (113,418), Austria (51,955), and considering that Germany has an eight times larger population that Sweden, Sweden was the country that received the most Syrian refugees per capita. Norway was close to the bottom with only 14,359 refugees. So, he must have mixed up Norway and Sweden. Not a big deal, and I am not deducting stars for that, but it was still a bit sloppy.
Overall, it is a great book that I highly recommend.
When Trump rescinded Executive Order 13653 on preparing the United States of the Impacts of Climate Change most government agencies complied, but one organization carried on like before, the US Department of Defense. The DoD, the Pentagon, the military, cannot afford to completely ignore a present major threat to our national security just to go along with the political sensibilities of some leaders.
Droughts, water scarcity, weather disasters, and floods lead to food insecurity, resource competition, and can cause conflicts between groups and nations and destabilize governments. Climate change has already made some difficult situations worse. The conflicts in northern Africa, the Arab spring, the war in Syria, etc., were partially caused by droughts that were made more severe by climate change. Climate change did not cause those conflicts, but it acted as a threat multiplier for instability of some of the most volatile regions of the world. Conflicts around the world often become a national security threats to the United States for various reasons, and it is getting worse.
The Brahmaputra River, which is very valuable to both India and China, draws much its flow from the melting of Himalayan glaciers, and climate change is shrinking the glaciers. Both countries are nuclear powers. That is just one example of potential water conflict. The Arctic ice is melting making 30% of the worlds untapped oil reserves accessible, and Russia, the US and other Arctic nations are already contesting the area. Half of Bangladesh will be flooded, and where are those people going to go? Add pandemics, wildfires, failing ecosystems, not to mention American naval installations around the world and at home being threatened by sea-level rise and worse extreme weather. The military see a substantial problem for good reason, and they have been studying it.
This book gives an overview of a large set of different kinds of problems related to climate change that concerns the military. The book is well researched, fact filled, and it is interesting reading. As I have already participated in lectures given by admirals and other military leaders on the threat that climate change poses to national security, none of this was surprising. I’ve heard a good deal of it before. However, I learned additional details and gained some more insights from this book. It is a very well written and fascinating book.
I found an error on page 114. The author writes about Syrian refugees “from there they sought passage to wealthier European countries farther north, especially Germany, Austria, and Norway”. According to the statistics the European countries that received the most Syrian refugees were Germany (572,818), Sweden (113,418), Austria (51,955), and considering that Germany has an eight times larger population that Sweden, Sweden was the country that received the most Syrian refugees per capita. Norway was close to the bottom with only 14,359 refugees. So, he must have mixed up Norway and Sweden. Not a big deal, and I am not deducting stars for that, but it was still a bit sloppy.
Overall, it is a great book that I highly recommend.
October 17, 2024
This book was suggested to me. I am not a particularly political person, though I consider myself vaguely center. I have not spent a lot of time thinking about or studying the issue of climate change. I am a skeptic in the sense that I'm suspicious of disastrous climate predictions and unconvinced that anything short of the hand of God can slow or stop it in a meaningful way. That being out of the way, I'll get on with my review.
The book doesn't appear to firmly make any arguments one way or another, except to assert to the reader that climate change is real and happening (which is sort of screaming into the void... I can't imagine climate deniers are reading this lol). It does exactly what it sets out to do: paint a picture of how the DoD's perception of the threats climate change poses to US National Security and the effectiveness of US armed forces has evolved from the early 2000's to the Trump administration.
The book provides plenty of specific examples of how severe weather events and gradual shifts in climate result in humanitarian disasters and political conflicts, though sometimes it feels Klare stretches a bit to make those latter connections (for example, all but stating the migrant caravans of the last few years are driven by conditions created - if indirectly - by climate change. You could kind of argue any aspect of geopolitics is driven by climate if you peel back human history far enough but I digress). These examples really helped me understand why the DoD takes climate threats increasingly seriously, and how those concerns are more humanity's than just the military's.
What I took away from it is a new understanding of the specific impacts continued warming will have on nations around the globe, which comes with an appreciation for efforts to 'go green'. But it's a bit depressing to read because there is no solution, there's only planning to survive impending disasters. That's just the nature of the topic I suppose.
TLDR: the book does a good job of showing you the DoD perspective on the severity of the climate threat, how that impacts national security primarily in the regard of combat readiness being impaired due to US armed forces being overstretched dealing with humanitarian disasters or climate driven security problems globally and domestically, and what they are doing to mitigate these threats now. At times the book is repetitive (did I read this page already? Kind of repetitive) and it's a pessimistic read from cover to cover. But, very informative.
The book doesn't appear to firmly make any arguments one way or another, except to assert to the reader that climate change is real and happening (which is sort of screaming into the void... I can't imagine climate deniers are reading this lol). It does exactly what it sets out to do: paint a picture of how the DoD's perception of the threats climate change poses to US National Security and the effectiveness of US armed forces has evolved from the early 2000's to the Trump administration.
The book provides plenty of specific examples of how severe weather events and gradual shifts in climate result in humanitarian disasters and political conflicts, though sometimes it feels Klare stretches a bit to make those latter connections (for example, all but stating the migrant caravans of the last few years are driven by conditions created - if indirectly - by climate change. You could kind of argue any aspect of geopolitics is driven by climate if you peel back human history far enough but I digress). These examples really helped me understand why the DoD takes climate threats increasingly seriously, and how those concerns are more humanity's than just the military's.
What I took away from it is a new understanding of the specific impacts continued warming will have on nations around the globe, which comes with an appreciation for efforts to 'go green'. But it's a bit depressing to read because there is no solution, there's only planning to survive impending disasters. That's just the nature of the topic I suppose.
TLDR: the book does a good job of showing you the DoD perspective on the severity of the climate threat, how that impacts national security primarily in the regard of combat readiness being impaired due to US armed forces being overstretched dealing with humanitarian disasters or climate driven security problems globally and domestically, and what they are doing to mitigate these threats now. At times the book is repetitive (did I read this page already? Kind of repetitive) and it's a pessimistic read from cover to cover. But, very informative.
April 30, 2020
The subtitle says it all - the book looks at the U.S. military's analysis of climate change threats. What is notable, and frankly appropriate, is that there is little discussion about the "debates" we have in our politics about climate change - whether its really happening, whether human activity is contributing, etc. Rather, the "Pentagon's Perspective" is, concisely, this is happening, what new threats does this create? What existing threats does it exacerbate?
I recently read David Wallace-Wells "The Uninhabitable Earth," which gives a bleak overview of what the world will look like when the planet keeps warming. This book gives a somewhat bleak overview of all the crises and conflicts that will be stoked by a warming planet. It will increase resource scarcity - leading to more competition and conflict between power states and more disarray and upheaval in emerging and failed states. This will create mass migration, which will increase resource scarcity all over again. Climate change has its feedback loops; its impact on U.S. national security also becomes a feedback loop.
While it is good that the Pentagon largely ignored President Trump's decision to ignore climate change - they still look for ways to mitigate their own impact, and are also planning for the likely inevitable crises to come, it is still depressing that much of the planning is with a sense of resignation. A resignation that this is happening.
The writing is solid, the chapters are organized well and in digestible chunks. Another book that I am glad that I read, but feel a little worse after doing so.
I recently read David Wallace-Wells "The Uninhabitable Earth," which gives a bleak overview of what the world will look like when the planet keeps warming. This book gives a somewhat bleak overview of all the crises and conflicts that will be stoked by a warming planet. It will increase resource scarcity - leading to more competition and conflict between power states and more disarray and upheaval in emerging and failed states. This will create mass migration, which will increase resource scarcity all over again. Climate change has its feedback loops; its impact on U.S. national security also becomes a feedback loop.
While it is good that the Pentagon largely ignored President Trump's decision to ignore climate change - they still look for ways to mitigate their own impact, and are also planning for the likely inevitable crises to come, it is still depressing that much of the planning is with a sense of resignation. A resignation that this is happening.
The writing is solid, the chapters are organized well and in digestible chunks. Another book that I am glad that I read, but feel a little worse after doing so.
October 17, 2021
3.5 stars, but because of the subject matter I'll round it up.
I've known about this book since it came out. When I mentioned to a friend that I was beginning to read it, he said "Oh, like Desert, but written from the military's perspective." And now that I've finished it, I would say....kinda. But not as interesting.
The truth is, nothing in this book was actually new for me. I'm well aware of the moves Russia is making towards the arctic circle/against Norway. I'm familiar with the impact of extreme weather on military bases (due to being a native Floridian). I've been aware of the dire nature of climate change for literally decades now. Anyone with even a mild ability to predict likely outcome of events would be able to see most of what this author (i.e. what the miliatry) identifies as the world's probable future.
To summarize the atmosphere of this book: It plays it on the straight and narrow. It's a "Just the facts, ma'am", kinda book. And I'd definitely say it's on the cautious side of just-the-facts, ma'am, which makes sense as this book is essentially a summary of a variety of interviews from senior military officials and various military produced reports.
I have no complaints about this book at all, it serves its purpose well. But it holds nothing new for anyone who's been paying attention. It's probably a good gift for your mom......if your mom was the kinda person who reads books. But if she was, she probably wouldn't need to read this one. I wouldn't encourage people from "my world" to read it, but maybe all the "moderate patriots" of the world would get something out of it?
TLDR, It' aight, but it be hella obvious.
I've known about this book since it came out. When I mentioned to a friend that I was beginning to read it, he said "Oh, like Desert, but written from the military's perspective." And now that I've finished it, I would say....kinda. But not as interesting.
The truth is, nothing in this book was actually new for me. I'm well aware of the moves Russia is making towards the arctic circle/against Norway. I'm familiar with the impact of extreme weather on military bases (due to being a native Floridian). I've been aware of the dire nature of climate change for literally decades now. Anyone with even a mild ability to predict likely outcome of events would be able to see most of what this author (i.e. what the miliatry) identifies as the world's probable future.
To summarize the atmosphere of this book: It plays it on the straight and narrow. It's a "Just the facts, ma'am", kinda book. And I'd definitely say it's on the cautious side of just-the-facts, ma'am, which makes sense as this book is essentially a summary of a variety of interviews from senior military officials and various military produced reports.
I have no complaints about this book at all, it serves its purpose well. But it holds nothing new for anyone who's been paying attention. It's probably a good gift for your mom......if your mom was the kinda person who reads books. But if she was, she probably wouldn't need to read this one. I wouldn't encourage people from "my world" to read it, but maybe all the "moderate patriots" of the world would get something out of it?
TLDR, It' aight, but it be hella obvious.
June 17, 2023
This book is infuriating in the way it frames the Pentagon as some kind of beleaguered superhero organization that can't do its job of helping people and keeping the world safe because of the external reality of global warming. Not once is it mentioned that the Pentagon is the world's largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases, with emissions matching those of some 100+ countries combined; nor does it call into question the pretext that the U.S. military's endless campaigns of terrorism and mass murder are motivated by a desire to maintain peace and defend the homeland, rather than securing America's position of obscene power and global hegemony.
Whatever value there is in understanding how the Pentagon views climate change, which is certainly a worthwhile subject, it is deeply undercut here by this author's unwillingness to even hint at the possibility that its motivations could be anything less than wholly benevolent, noble, and justified. By the end this book almost comes across as a propaganda campaign touting the military's so-called "achievements" in "going green," while still failing to place these actions into any kind of context relative to the monstrous scope of the Pentagon's world-killing behaviors.
Whatever value there is in understanding how the Pentagon views climate change, which is certainly a worthwhile subject, it is deeply undercut here by this author's unwillingness to even hint at the possibility that its motivations could be anything less than wholly benevolent, noble, and justified. By the end this book almost comes across as a propaganda campaign touting the military's so-called "achievements" in "going green," while still failing to place these actions into any kind of context relative to the monstrous scope of the Pentagon's world-killing behaviors.
October 12, 2020
Seeing this title on the “new” shelf at the library, I was skeptical. Why would the American military establishment be thinking differently than the president?
Well, of course they are.
Chock full of reputable sources, this well researched book opens up a window into the mindsets of our military leaders. Whether it be the Army, Navy, Marines—all the top brass have a wealth of actual experience and can see first-hand what is going on. They call it the way they see it and have been actively establishing policy guidelines to address climate change for decades.
With a current president who is turning a blind eye, their missions continue under various guises. Some of their policy positions are outgrowths of previous administrations. Others are adaptive, utilizing technologies that enable less dependence on fossil fuels. In author Klare’s view, he clearly states the military’s important and valuable work—in service of the nation--and the likelihood of their increased role in a warming world.
Well, of course they are.
Chock full of reputable sources, this well researched book opens up a window into the mindsets of our military leaders. Whether it be the Army, Navy, Marines—all the top brass have a wealth of actual experience and can see first-hand what is going on. They call it the way they see it and have been actively establishing policy guidelines to address climate change for decades.
With a current president who is turning a blind eye, their missions continue under various guises. Some of their policy positions are outgrowths of previous administrations. Others are adaptive, utilizing technologies that enable less dependence on fossil fuels. In author Klare’s view, he clearly states the military’s important and valuable work—in service of the nation--and the likelihood of their increased role in a warming world.
May 11, 2022
book would have benefitted from a neutral stance
Despite starting the book off by talking about how this subject has been politicized and that the military is doing it’s job by focusing on potential risks (great), the author jumps quickly into tirades about the projections proposed by climate change almost as if they are fact (detracted from his credibility). The author does nothing to better define what climate change actually means and basically points at all weather anomalies and says “see! The climate is changing”. This is unfortunately very low level analysis, and given some of the claims I would have hoped the author would have better substantiated as is done much more expertly in other books. This detracts from what I bought the book for, which was to understand military readiness and the potential security impacts. Some interesting points on that front like the opening of the arctic as a new ocean for military operations, but most scenarios mentioned can be easily imagined without reading this book.
Despite starting the book off by talking about how this subject has been politicized and that the military is doing it’s job by focusing on potential risks (great), the author jumps quickly into tirades about the projections proposed by climate change almost as if they are fact (detracted from his credibility). The author does nothing to better define what climate change actually means and basically points at all weather anomalies and says “see! The climate is changing”. This is unfortunately very low level analysis, and given some of the claims I would have hoped the author would have better substantiated as is done much more expertly in other books. This detracts from what I bought the book for, which was to understand military readiness and the potential security impacts. Some interesting points on that front like the opening of the arctic as a new ocean for military operations, but most scenarios mentioned can be easily imagined without reading this book.
July 19, 2025
An interesting book, if a bit repetitive. And I'm not convinced that the "Great Green Fleet" was a step in the right direction. The addition of 10% liquified beef fat to the ships' fuel sounds more like a gimme to some midwestern Senator with a lot of cattle-farmers on his patch, than a credible attempt to reduce GHG's. Haven't they heard about the methane generated by cow-farts, and that it is 80 times more damaging than CO2? A lot of the so-called alternative fuels seem more about politics than science. I lived and worked in Brazil in the late 80's/ early 90's and a lot of the cars there ran wholly on alcohol produced from locally grown sugar. It worked, but was less efficient than gasoline, and every time it rained heavily there'd be cars stalled out all over the place. As for making alcohol from corn, don't make me laugh. The inputs for the processes to make the phosphates and nitrates to grow the crops will more than outweigh the savings in CO2 in the fuel. I applaud the intent, but I'm not sure that the ways and means are all pure.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 69 reviews