David de Rothschild's Global Warming Survival Handbook reviewed

A review of David de Rothschild's book

I recently published a hub here about how rude and unfair Alex Jones had been on his show when he had the opportunity to interview adventurer and environmentalist David de Rothschild about his book The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook . Like so many conspiracy theorists, Jones chose not to see De Rothschild as an individual, who might have his own views on the world, but to condemn him from the start simply because he is from the Rothschild elite banking family.

That David is a Rothschild does not mean, or should not mean, anything more than that - yes, he bears the name and comes from a fabulously wealthy background, however, that does not mean he cannot think for himself and doesn't mean he has to agree with everything his family believe or have done.

The show was Alex Jones at his worst, and I found myself siding with De Rothschild rather than the host.

David de Rothschild's book

My copy of The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook
My copy of The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook

The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handook

I decided I would actually get a copy of David's book to see what he really has to say for himself. He didn't get much of a chance on the show under the non-stop verbal attack from Jones.

I believe in looking for the good points in everyone and in their work and wanted to know what De Rothschild was saying. I bought a copy of The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook by David de Rothschild and this is my review of it.

It was published by Melcher Media in 2007 in conjunction with the Live Earth concerts and has the additional subtitle 77 Essential Skills to Stop Climate Change - or Live Through It .

The cover shows a polar bear on a life-raft surrounded by ocean and SOS as the message in a bottle. "Official Companion to the Live Earth Concerts" is emblazoned above the scene in an orange sun to symbolise global warming. The polar bear image is somewhat misleading because they can swim, although they do need land to swim to and the one in the illustration only has sea.

The book takes the view, as its title suggests, that global warming is a reality and that the time for debating this is over. We all need to make changes in our lives to help reverse it and to help save the planet and our future on it.

De Rothschild says: "The time has come to stop being part of the problem and to become part of the solution." I agree with him on that.

Whether you believe that humans are responsible for accelerating global warming, and I am not personally convinced that we make much difference, or feel that it is a natural cycle that is happening in our solar system, does not make most of the information in this book any less worthwhile. Naturally I don't agree with the author on everything but with a lot of it I do.

I think it is important to look for points of agreement with other people and their work rather than dismissing them without giving them a chance and pre-judging them as Jones and many of his followers have done with David.

The climate is changing and humans are ruining the environment and rendering other species severely endangered or actually extinct. We cannot deny these facts. Wildfires are on the rise and as I write Greece has just been devastated by fire that has destroyed homes and the environment there.

I have seen the effects of such fires for myself where I live in Tenerife and even though such fires may have been started by arsonists the fact that the countryside's vegetation is so tinder dry is evidence that the world has become hotter.

In my own view, we all do need to make changes in our lives, we all do need to stop doing things that waste resources, we all do need to be more in touch with the natural world and we all do need to recycle more and more. This is just good old common sense and respect for our planetary home and the other humans and wildlife we share the globe with.

De Rothschild's book is packed with common sense and easy to read. It is illustrated too and is small enough to carry around easily. It is as big as my hand - a real handbook.

After an introduction in which David de Rothschild talks about the weather and how it has become a controversial topic, he starts out by listing 10 Easy Steps to Help Fight Global Warming." They are to wear warmer clothing if you are chilly, to use energy-saving bulbs, not to leave electrical appliances on stand-by, to cut out using plastic bags when shopping by bringing your own reusable bag, to support local shops, not to use styrofoam and disposable cups and plates, to use public transport, to ride a bike or walk, to take shorter showers rather than long baths, and finally, to plant fruit and vegetables and trees and flowers.

I am well aware that there is a lot of current debate about the safety of the compact fluorescent light bulbs because of the mercury they contain, but apart from that, I agree with all the suggestions made there and are things I already do.

So what other advice does De Rothschild offer? Well, he advises against thinking big when it comes to cars, houses and electrical appliances to cut down on energy being used, and that makes sense to me too.

He offers tips on how to go about making positive changes in your life and suggests you approach achieving a goal on a gradient scale and to reward yourself as you progress for any points of success along the way. Later on in his book he suggests that throwing a party and celebrating is a good idea.

We all need some fun and enjoyment in our lives and David de Rothschild writes with a lot of humour in his book. As he says: "Laugh a little - saving the planet is going to be tough, but it doesn't have to be boring."

De Rothschild talks about how planes and the number of flights people are taking are causing big problems. Chemtrail-believers may be surprised to find out that David de Rothschild is in agreement with them that the artificial cirrus cloud cover that blankets the skies is not a good thing at all. He says that it traps heat and is generated by the exhaust emissions from planes, but he calls the persistent trails that cause it contrails not chemtrails.

De Rothschild advises using worms to recycle your vegetable waste into compost, which you can then use to help grow your own food crops. He recommends homegrown tomatoes as so much better than any you can buy in the shops and I would agree on that too.

He points out that comercially grown tomatoes waste energy in having to be transported many miles and that they are artificially turned red with ethylene gas as well as being refrigerated. De Rothschild is concerned about the fruit and vegetable types we have lost and says that America has lost 81% of its tomato varieties over the last century.

In a chapter entitled "Befriend Your Farmer," David has a lot to say about good old-fashioned farmers and how we should support them. He advises that it is a good idea to buy direct from farmers and to support local markets. He supports organic farming and is one himself.

De Rothschild thinks that it is important for people to connect with and enjoy nature and this is something I totally agree with him on having been fascinated by the natural world since I was a toddler. He advises to get out there and really experience a forest, a mountain, a field, a sunset or a dive in the ocean. I would advise the same!

David de Rothschild suggests that planting trees or supporting organisations that do is another wise thing to do, and again, in tune with nature,he recommends building a bat house and putting up bat boxes. These little animals are disappearing in many parts of the world so need all the help they can get.

De Rothschild devotes one section of his book to discuss the danger of extinction that so many species face and tells us that by 2050, scientists think that as much as one-third of plant and animal species may become extinct.

He suggests that saving rainwater is a very good idea and I would agree. I remember my granddad and father always had water butts in their gardens to do just that.

David de Rothschild thinks that vegetarianism is the way forward and he also speaks out against leather boots saying that whilst "The Fonz" may have been very "cool" the formaldehyde and other chemicals added to the hides are decidedly not!

On the recycling front, David talks about how one person's rubbish could be just what their neighbour needs and he suggests using the Internet to buy and sell or exchange our unwanted goods. The author also points out some of the many ways that newspaper can be used again such as padding material in fragile packages and shredded as something that can go in the compost heap.

The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handook includes a glossary of technical terms and a detailed Resources list, which includes Adventure Ecology, the movement and website that De Rothschild founded.

Alex Jones and conspiracy theorists may not approve but I would say that there is a lot of excellent information in David de Rothschild's book and can highly recommend it.

More by this Author

Comments 53 comments

nicomp profile image

nicomp 7 years ago from Ohio, USA

"De Rothschild advises using worms to recycle your vegetable waste into compost, which you can then use to help grow your own food crops. He recommends homegrown tomatoes as so much better than any you can buy in the shops and I would agree on that too."

Decomposing vegetable matter produces methane, a 'global warming' gas that retains heat 20 times more efficiently than CO2.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Without decomposing vegetable matter plants couldn't grow and life as we know it would end! It is nature's way and always has been. Worms are one of the creatures that help greatly in the natural ways of recycling organic matter.

JonSterling profile image

JonSterling 7 years ago from Houston Texas - United States


We have a little bit of a different way to grow food at our home - There is a rice canal behind our home - it's is fed from a nearby river with two very powerful water pumps - it grinds up anything that goes through them e.g. fish, snakes, worms? and run from the river to the local coal burning electrical about twenty miles away. But everyone living next to the canal taps it with a submersible pump and then water our lawns and gardens with it. This protein infused water puts Miracle Grow to shame!

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Interesting feedback, Jon, but a shame about all those fish and snakes! Thanks, for posting!

Mac Mission profile image

Mac Mission 7 years ago from bangalore

I have read this type of topics but its really good.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Thank you!

Lisa Luv profile image

Lisa Luv 7 years ago from Conneticut, USA

Stopped by to say Hi!

and snag this for my reading tonight ! Thank You!

IslandVoice profile image

IslandVoice 7 years ago from Hawaii

Looks to me like a good guide book for making our planet a cleaner and healthier place, so what's up with Alex Jones? Perhaps, a case of (reverse?) discrimination coming from a lesser being vs an enlightened De Rothschild, who happens to be a wealthy man? We need to address environmental issues and people who have the influence will step up and do their share, maybe it won't be too late. I like book reviews. Thanks for writing this one.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Thank you for posting, Lisa and Island Voice! I don't see that someone should be judged by their family name but should be judged by what they do. David de Rothschild is currently engaged in sailing on a plastic bottles raft called the Plastiki to highlight the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and that is doing a lot to raise awareness of pollution of the sea. What he says in his book I am mainly in agreement with too.

I believe everybody should be addressing "environmental issues!"

ledefensetech profile image

ledefensetech 7 years ago from Cape Girardeau, MO

Before I begin with some, hopefully, constructive criticism, I'd like to applaud you for pointing out that de Rothschild is a guy, just like you and me. It's a refreshing change from the conspiracy, illuminati rantings that you normally see connected to that family name. Kudos.

It's interesting that both you and Rothschild underscore the correlation between cloud cover and global warming. Have you ever considered the implications of solar wind and/or the lack of it having an effect on cloud cover? Solar wind is tied to sunspot activity which may be why, unlike CO2 studies showing a lag between temperature rising and increased CO2 emission, the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles. One telling note is that sunspot activity was nearly nonexistent during the Little Ice Age.

The reason this is important is that, despite what Al "I invented the Internet" Gore says, the debate is far from over. What you have are special interests now involved in what should be a purely scientific matter. Those interests have now involved governments and hope to use the authority of governments to force a particular outcome. The problem with trying to force an outcome are the unforeseen problems that can occur.

What if, for example, global warming isn't tied to CO2 but to cloud cover that is influenced in part by sunspot activity on the sun. We can't control that sort of thing. That fact is why I think so many people cleave to the CO2 theory of global warming, we can do something about that. If, however, sunspot activity determines the general trend of temperatures, up or down, all we can do then is attempt to mitigate the effects, because that is all we can do. The good news is that we're an endlessly inventive species and can usually figure out a solution to a problem that we're faced with.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Thank you for some really excellent feedback, Ledefensetech, and as I pointed out, I personally don't subscribe to the we caused global warming scenario. I tend to think it is a natural cosmic cycle we cannot do much about BUT that doesn't mean at all that we should not care about everything else we can control and play our part in. It does NOT mean we should not care about the other life forms on this planet or the environment...in fact it does the reverse because we all need to be even more aware and connected to nature and STOP messing the place up! We all need to do what we can to act in balance with Mother Earth and stop trashing her beautiful habitats and wasting the resources she gives us!

ledefensetech profile image

ledefensetech 7 years ago from Cape Girardeau, MO

In many ways people look at environmental degradation with hindsight. Some people revile the automobile, but they've forgotten the filth and stench that used to fill our cities from horse droppings. You can read about people's relief as cities began to clean up as cars replaced horses for transportation. It wasn't until later that we began to see the unforeseen consequences of the combustion engine. Namely smog, acid rain, etc.

Since we look at these things through hindsight we begin to blame advancement for our ills and pine for the "good old days" before all of this evil technology removed the age old problems of famine, disease and poverty. None of us in any advanced nation has any clue what it means to survive in a pre-industrial setting. I pray to God that we never have to find out what that means.

On the flipside, once we do understand the unintended consequences of our actions, we need to change them. In that, I think the mechanism of that change is where you and I differ.

You see capitalism as the root of this evil whereas I ascribe it to government intervention. One of the main reasons I hold the convictions I do is because socialist countries in general have a worse polluting track record than anyone else. Now I understand that may not be the case in Western Europe today, but the main reason I make that statement is due to the inability of socialist organizations to ascribe cost to any particular decision.

Many people revile a capitalist for using profit to make a decision, but one thing that capitalism's detractors don't take into account is that people will refuse to buy from a company who despoils the environment or damages things in other ways. Socialists, for all of their supposedly good intentions, don't have that incentive. If you can't get someone where they will feel it, they lose much of the incentive to act correctly.

Which is where our opinions probably diverged. What I got out of your hub was another strident call to rope in the supposed excesses of capitalism, whereas, in reality you were attempting to call attention to the problem. I think that we are in agreement that mitigation should be the focus of our efforts, not emissions control.

Aya Katz profile image

Aya Katz 7 years ago from The Ozarks

Ledefensetech, I'm a free marketeer myself, but I'm not sure how the free market can best handle pollution. (I'm not suggesting government regulations -- rest assured.) But as I see the problem, it's that both the producers and the consumers are enjoying now something that will cost later generations.

If consumers won't boycott products with HFCS for the sake of their own health and good taste, I don't see them exercising self restraint when it involves the environment of future generations yet unborn.

Bard of Ely, thanks for writing this hub and hosting this discussion!

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Ledefensetech, you say: "evil technology removed the age old problems of famine, disease and poverty" and I say it didn't remove them very well seeing as millions of people exist and die in such conditions today! Capitalism and socialism are two sides of the same coin - all political parties are corrupt!

Aya, thank you for posting and I am glad you appreciate this hub and comments!

David's book is talking to consumers, it's talking to everyone and it's saying that if something is worth doing, well, why not make a start and do it - or I get that understanding from it. In other words if anyone reading his book does any of the things he suggests it will make a difference tiny as it may be. It's a call to action!

ledefensetech profile image

ledefensetech 7 years ago from Cape Girardeau, MO

Bard, you seem to miss the point that without this technology and advancements in science, many lower class citizens would be dead today and would not have a chance to live. One of the reasons I disagree with you so much about fertilizer is because in order to be all-natural organic you would have to cultivate three times as much land in order to have the same amount of food. If you think farming is damaging the economy now, imagine how much damage would be done if we were to switch to Intel really organic farming methods.

We don't even have to do that. All we have to do is look around the world and see where those methods still practiced, when you do that you realize that many of those places still live under the threat of famine. That is anyway can't do a better job? No. We can do a better job.

I also think you misunderstand my definition of capitalism. I use it in the sense of the classical usage of the word. This was before Marx and before National Socialism confused the language. Capitalism means that people own methods of production. Socialism means the state owns methods of production. That's why there's little difference between classical socialism and National Socialism. It's not exactly different sides of the same coin.

After that I am interested in reading his book and analyzing it from an economic perspective. Like I've said, I'm not opposed to doing some of these things, but it has to make sense economically.

The Old Firm profile image

The Old Firm 7 years ago from Waikato/Bay Of Plenty, New Zealand

Thanks for the Hub Bard. I too think that global warming has little to do with human input and a lot to do with solar, and possibly galactic influences (in that our passage during galactic rotation may take us through zones that influence solar variation)

However, human input is influencing life on this planet, both animal and vegetative, and sensibly we should be working toward cleaning up our act. Common sense should prevail. Baking you own bread is one thing, growing wheat in flowerpots all over the house and grinding it by smacking it between two stones is quite another. To quote a grandfather of mine, "There's a difference between scratching your backside and tearing it to shreds!" You've shown that you're in accord with this.

I do think though that the powerful have promoted this warming with scare tactics for their own gain. The Kyoto agreement is a prime example. In new Zealand our last government committed us to it and the present one supports that with the absurd result that as a clean, green nuclear free country with four and a half million population on a land-mass nearly the size of Britain we are buying carbon credits from Russia, who are classed better environmentally than us, pollution, dodgy power stations, doubtful farming, the lot, as their population/area ratio is lower!

If this isn't exploitation I'm a monkey's uncle.



Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Ledefensetech, a lot of modern farmed land and crops goes as animal feed to support the meat industry which is a wastage of land or is used as land for animal farming for the meat industry! Reduce farming for meat and it makes a lot more land available for plant crop production and restores habitat being lost!

Where do we have the sort of success you are talking about?

TOF, I agree with what you said! Those who run the world are pushing this as scare stories for "their own gain."

"However, human input is influencing life on this planet, both animal and vegetative, and sensibly we should be working toward cleaning up our act. Common sense should prevail." With your thoughts there I agree completely!

Thanks for posting, Ledefensetech and TOF!

Universal Laws profile image

Universal Laws 7 years ago from UNIVERSE

Well I would just love to see how David de Rochschild lived his life? Is he out their with his compost checking the worms, has he got a little car using less gas? Does he still like cavier and exotic holidays on long air flights? Im open to hearing he walks his talk - anybody know?

ledefensetech very wrong and outmoded data there on organic growing, using all the well researched modern methods of bio dynamics and organics yields are amazing. You are comparing it to indigenious people in the 3rd world countries who do not farm for others or to get huge yields.

Sustainability is viable, healthier and gives us the future on this planet. Using bio dynamics in europe incredible yields are gained, please check your facts otherwise it looks like you are just spouting out propaganda for the fertilizer industry!!!!!


Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Thank you for your response to Ledefensetech's comments. I have to agree it did look as if he was promoting chemical fertiliser.

As for David de Rothschild he is doing this:


ledefensetech profile image

ledefensetech 7 years ago from Cape Girardeau, MO

UL, you might want to read more and listen to propaganda less. The organic bunch does propaganda just as much as the evil corporations do. Bard, I am advocating the use of fertilizer, I'd rather not see a significant portion of the human population starve, I'm kind weird that way. Besides small family owned farms are not very profitable and use far more resources than large scale farming.


Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

I am back to the farm in Paraguay again as an example - that farming family were not making much profit, if any, but that was not the point at all. They were able to provide for their needs in a healthy way that was not damaging to the neighbouring environment with what they had. The reverse is now the case and they are exposed to dangers from the surrounding farms and their livestock have died because of poisons from outside!

Chemical fertiliser cannot be a good thing. It deprives the soil of what should be there - rotting vegetable matter that besides adding nutrients to the soil feeds animals like worms and other creatures that live in earth. Take it away and such creatures die out or drastically are reduced in number. In turn animals like birds and insects like beetles become less. Artificial fertiliser destroys links in the ecological chain.

PS the link you left doesn't work!

ledefensetech profile image

ledefensetech 7 years ago from Cape Girardeau, MO

Bard, in many ways Paraguay, or was it Uruguay? people have to farm in order to survive. Quite a bit of that is due to the environment they live in. Tropical farming conditions are very different from those in temperate climates. Given a choice, I'm sure many of them would choose to do something else.

When I tried the link it opened find. If you peruse it you'll find evidence that industrial farming not only produces food more cheaply, but it also makes more food than other alternatives.

Chemical fertilizer has to be a good thing for farming because it triples the yields that you'd get otherwise. Now there may be environmental degradation problems, but those may be easily solved. I once read an article in Popular Science that explored the possibility of a skyscraper-like building that instead of housing offices, would grow food. In that case the unanticipated consequences of industrial farming could be better controlled and since we control the environment of the building, we could test in laboratory settings best practices to grow food which might include certain green practices.

Universal Laws profile image

Universal Laws 7 years ago from UNIVERSE

ledefensetech - I quote from your own Univervisity of Mitchigan

"ANN ARBOR, Mich.—Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the same land—according to new findings which refute the long-standing claim that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population.

Researchers from the University of Michigan found that in developed countries, yields were almost equal on organic and conventional farms. In developing countries, food production could double or triple using organic methods, said Ivette Perfecto, professor at U-M's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and one the study's principal investigators. Catherine Badgley, research scientist in the Museum of Paleontology, is a co-author of the paper along with several current and former graduate and undergraduate students from U-M.

"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can’t produce enough food through organic agriculture," Perfecto said"


ledefensetech profile image

ledefensetech 7 years ago from Cape Girardeau, MO

Great, do you know if those results have been independently verified? Unless those results have been reproduced, all what you've quoted is propaganda.

The Old Firm profile image

The Old Firm 7 years ago from Waikato/Bay Of Plenty, New Zealand

Hey Bard, I managed to access the link ledefencetech kindly left after a couple of tries. It's interesting reading, although it drops into statistical gobbledygook in places.

I enclose one of the first comments (in part) to this article, It supports you I think:

"Regarding the Electrification Of Transportation (EOT) movement, it’s interesting to compare total energy consumption in the EU versus US (the EU uses about half as much energy per person as the US). Of course, this is also related to their high energy consumption taxes. However, I suspect that very few people would now argue that the US system is superior. The other question is whether we can go back to what we once had and what the EU now has, regarding EOT. As Alan Drake has pointed out, we did it before in the US, with minimal fossil fuel input.

Regarding the larger topic of farming, it seems to me that the obvious comparison is the small Amish farm versus industrialized farming. My recollection is that the yield per acre on Amish farms is lower than industrialized farms, but the profit per acre is higher."

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Thanks for posting that TOF! I am not an Amish but would much prefer their way of farming!

Aya Katz profile image

Aya Katz 7 years ago from The Ozarks

Bard of Ely, I have written a hub about the connection between ecology and economy. In it, I suggest that many ecological problems might not even have arisen, if not for government stimulus that revved up the industrial machine. I thought you might be interested in these ideas.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Aya, before I even get to see it I can tell that I agree! Yes, indeed all these problems are the result of "progress!"

MikeNV profile image

MikeNV 7 years ago from Henderson, NV

Humans are ruining the planet through pollution and exploitation of natural resources, but NOT Global Warming.

FACT: There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Yes, I am far more concerned about the pollution and wasteful use of resources as well as habitat destruction! Thanks for posting, Mike!

tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 7 years ago from South Africa

Thanks for a useful Hub and interesting debate.

We are happily messing up the planet,and I don't think debates about whether capitalism or socialism are better or worse really make a jot of difference. I will say though, that I think capitalism is the cause of many problems - corporations will push GM products and chemical fertilizers no matter what damage they do, etc. etc. Profit is always the motive no matter who or what suffers in the process.

Love and peace


Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Thank you for your thoughts on the matter, Tonymac04!

someonewhoknows profile image

someonewhoknows 7 years ago from south and west of canada,north of ohio

Ledefensetech the military is the biggest polluter known to man besides volcanos which produce the most greenhouse gases.than any other source combined.The emmissions controls the auto companies gave us were 1. making cars use more gas by not completely utilizing gasolines fullest potential even when it's combined with ethanol for a cleaner exhaust.much of the fuel is burned in the catalylitic con-verter and wasted.

As for current modern farming MONSANTO for one is in it for control of the seed the farmers can use and they're selling it as a better producing seed,when in fact they are trying to gouge the smaller farmers by requiring them to use more pesticide without even getting a bigger or better crop.The pesticides are killing people as well especially in third world countries,where the people live in their fields where the crops are sprayed. They are driving third world farmers out of business.

As for mega farming they have a big problem ,namely waste from animal manure that they can't use themselves and have to pay to have hauled away or if they can't afford that ,they simply put it in damed up ponds that seep into the ground water.Yeah that's much better than smaller locally produced organically grown food right ! Give me a break!

I'll give you the fact that very small scale farming is not as productive as larger scale farming ,but when it comes to mega farms the bigger they get the harder it is to be sustainably productive given the increased costs of transportation and storing waste from their animal factories.I understand they are so focused on the profit motive that they are recyling the dead animals and mixing desecated animal tissues into their animal feed.

I agree with the idea of being more productive while at the same time sustaining the environment that allows us to sustain that production.

We should grow more locally than having to transport food long distances.

Even growing in greenhouses locally is better than hauling exotic fruits and other foods from far off countries.

mike I doubt that we could have survived the concentrations of co2 you quote here .

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 7 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Good points and I would just add that where I live in Tenerife near North Africa I have seen plenty of fruit on sale including peaches, kiwi fruit and plums that have come all the way from Chile and this is almost unbelievable - bottled water imported from France! Meanwhile the water from the island is poisoned with fluoride so people buy the bottled stuff!

nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 years ago from Ohio, USA

"The climate is changing and humans are ruining the environment and rendering other species severely endangered or actually extinct."

Actually, humans are the only species that care about the environment. Ask a termite to stop eating your house. Ask a pigeon to stop spreading disease by pooping everywhere.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 6 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Yes, but the strange thing is only humans ruin it in the first place!

0-annexation 6 years ago

The issues the author of this article seems to agree with David on are things we already know and information that has been readily available for many many years now, and are issues I think most people across the planet could all agree on.

The problem is NOT the people in my opinion. We all want a better planet to live in! It's not for lack of education, technology or desire or ability.

For example, why the heck should I have to grow my own food just to ensure I'm getting good quality,locally grown, pesticide free, non GM foods? If this is what we want..we should be getting it! We should not accept or tolerate as 'consumers' a substandard product when an already superior product has been in use since the beginning of time!

What companies are doing this to us? Who funds them, who owns them?, why is the government, the ones the want to help us save the planet, fighting protectionism and promoting globalization?

Why are they not enforcing environmental laws already on the books, against the very people that are sitting at the table with them talking about saving the planet and global warming?

Why are they killing off local farms, offering them carbon credit scams NOT to produce on their lands? Seizing their cattle or removing them from their land via expropriation for Trade Corridors, Inland Ports And High-Speed rail projects? Why would they pass legislation allowing officers to raid organic food retailers?

Why is it that the same companies/transnational corporations that are polluting the earth with their imported useless crap products, designed with a limited service use and all the byproducts that go along with, shipped all over the globe before it ends up in the hands of the end user, are also the same ones who get to take a seat at tables like COP15/16, and are allowed to pass off bogus data as fact, as pretext for a global carbon tax and trading scheme? Why are the same people promoting the carbon tax scheme due to global warming, the same people with commercial interesting in these carbon trading markets?

With all his influence, money, family history, marketability, and love for the environment, Why does David not use that power to seek out what corporations, holding companies, banks etc his family has direct interest in and demand that THEY clean up their acts, and start growing and producing better, healthier

foods, stop polluting through excess packaging, stop globalization, put pressure on the government to stop relaxing laws on GM crops to appeal to "international" standards or norms, Stop funding GM companies, use some of your families riches to clean up the plastic floating around in the ocean, fund alternative energies etc.

It seems to me, if he really cared about the environment he shouldn't be wasting his time writing and selling books on stuff we already know, information that has been in the school curriculum for what must be over 20 years now. Why waste precious time appearing on talk shows and floating around on a recycled pop bottle boat telling us what type of TP we should be wiping our bums with and promoting the globalist agenda of Global Governance?

David is going to have to start pushing for a reduced work week for the employees of the nation, the're going to need some free time to take up gardening and rain water collection (which is actually illegal in some states)you criminals! :-)

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 6 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

0-annexation, you ask a lot of very valid questions, however, I would point out first of all that whilst you can claim rightly that much of the info in David's book is already known about there are millions of people who do not know it or apply it even if they do. If we just take the recycling issue, most people are aware of that but do most people voluntarily do so? Not where I live they don't! Yes, some people take their recyclables and put them in the appropriate skips but a majority don't bother and just chuck all their refuse out together. Worse than this many people throw their rubbish away into the environment, over a wall or dumped on the countryside. When I went back to Wales last year I was pleased to see all the green bags put out in the estate I used to live in. A few years back I was one of the only people who did this. I commented to a friend how good it was to see that people are waking up and showing responsibility and she said the reason they are doing so is because they have been forced to! What a shame it is that this is the case! I found myself thinking that in this case it was good that residents were being made to do something because otherwise, as I knew, they do not bother!

As for your opinions on what David should do: I have seen a lot of comments from people who think like you but personally I think it is expecting way too much of one guy! How can one man take on the global corporations and power structures of the world? He cannot but he can inspire the people to do so and he can show support for companies and individuals doing what they can. He can serve as a public figurehead and role model to inspire others. Whilst a large number of people do not show much responsibility for their actions whether they are global companies or the man in the street there can be no change. The one is a microcosm of the other: if it is OK for a householder to throw litter in the street, chuck rubbish on the land and ignore recycling schemes why should a big company behave any better with regard to pollution and recycling? They are both as bad as each other but on a very different scale. David de Rothschild is using his position to show people what the consequences of pollution of the environment are. Millions of people do not realise that thrown away plastic kills turtles and sea birds and whales but a lot more do know this now. A lot more are horrified and want to take action to stop this and rightly so.

jon tm 6 years ago

chemical fertilizer is derived from oil, of which there is a finite amount. which is one reason industrial farming is unsustainable. it also destroys top soil.

i would be impressed if David de Rothchild would campaign for economic reform. capitalism in its current reform requires infinite grow on a finite planet. not all forms of socialism involve the state owning the means of production. another option is for the workers to own the farms and factories etc.

profile image

Dontbugme 5 years ago

This was an interesting read, but i still think the rothschild 's are all full of it. They are the epitome of capitalism. And need to be brought to justice.

Any entity that hoards half a planets wealth is accountable to only all of its peers or no one.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 5 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

I must point out once again that David is an individual and not "the Rothschilds."

Dan1 5 years ago

Another great read Bard!

During my travels over the past 10 years in S.E Asia, I have observed the river systems and waterways in this region to be amongst the most polluted in the world with non bio degradeable plastics and toxic debris.

My personal interaction with local people in Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam over this period has also revealed that environmental education and awareness is sadly and seriously lacking in order to foster a spirit of ecological responsibility within the communities. When it comes to disposal of such waste, sadly most of this ends up circulating the oceans of our world.

I believe environmental awareness and education are paramount to the inhabitants of these areas wherein lies the potential for the most significant reduction in the worlds pollution. Unfortunately, the poor but good hearted majority here can ill afford a handy book of tips like Davids, and without access to the internet are even less likely to have heard of the Plastiki project or the author himself for that matter. Education here MUST be for FREE!

While I do believe David's concern for the environment is genuine and commend him for his efforts in taking action, there is still a very long way to go. One can't help but ponder whether his primary objective is to fix the environment or capitalise on it through the creation of multiple business opportunities as opposed to philanthropic endeavours.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 5 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Thanks for your feedback, Dan! David has used his position to get the message out to those who can hear it, and whilst many won't there are those that do and the more the better. With regard to your last comment I would say he is doing both because he is hoping to inspire green businesses as the way forward. I think he is saying there is money to be made in doing things in a new and better way - using recyclables, for example.

Gerry Bern profile image

Gerry Bern 5 years ago from Brighton, England

It's really worth a read - de Rothschild is one of the most practical and thoughtful environmental campaigners out there. Good sensible straight-forward stuff.

Importantly, he's one of the least prone to throw in any silly, off the cuff or purely fantastical twaddle - the purveyors of which have done a lot to discredit the causes they try to support.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 5 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Thank you for this great feedback, Gerry, with which I totally agree!

Andrew 5 years ago

Meanwhile the Rothschilds clan will make billions out ofcarbon trading, I can't beleive how naïve the author of this article really is. Wake up.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 5 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

I can't believe how biased and badly researched you are!

road2hell profile image

road2hell 5 years ago from Linden, AB

Anyways, I pick up the book from my library and it is excellent. Everyone should make plans to be prepared for disasters. More and more catastrophes are occuring and all us need to be ready for them. It also gives great ideas of how to practice consveration which can't hurt any for people to learn and practice. We must respect nature and its gift of natural resources. We will lose what we abuse.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 5 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

Thank you for your very positive review, road2hell!

digitalbeat666 5 years ago

He owns your opinions. It does not matter what positive messages there is by Rockefellers because these people are already ultra rich. Global warming is a big statistical scam.

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 5 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

What has this to do with the Rockefellers? Global Warming is simply a reality as far as I can tell as one who has been observing nature all my life.

Dawnie Rotten 5 years ago

It's such ashame that people are still so gullible in this day and age. There is NO "individualism" in The House of Rothschild. The "family business" (World Domination)is hundreds of years old and it isn't stopping anytime soon! Matter of fact, their agenda is now at warp-speed!

A part of that agenda is called "Agenda 21". There are plenty of video's on YouTube about Agenda 21 as well as many writings on the subject. Also look for it at the United Nations website. It IS public! But people are too brain washed to know what is happening. You're all FOOLS!

Alex Jones a "conspiracy theorist"??? lmao!! Too funny! The man does HIS RESEARCH and has been DEAD ON. ALL of what he says either HAS already come to pass or IS coming to pass. I think you owe the man a PUBLIC apology! As he is getting right now from people who have called him a "nut" over all of these years.

YES; "Global Warming" IS "man-made"!! And it's called HAARP! DO YOUR RESEARCH!!

If you all do not wake up soon, you'll fund yourselves in FEMA detention center!

Bard of Ely profile image

Bard of Ely 5 years ago from Lisbon, Portugal Author

I have done a lot of research in my time if you care to read up on me and my other writings! We will have to agree to disagree on what you have posted!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article