British royal radicals have been making green news twice within a week. First we had ecofascist Prince Philip highlighting world overpopulation, and right after this, plant rights activist Prince Charles stated his concerns on the clearing of tropical rainforests. We should be rooting for them both!

It surprised me to discover that the plight of the rainforests has been increasingly relegated to a lesser priority in politics and the media than the specific need to cut carbon emissions. These issues cannot be separated! Rainforests and emissions go together like white corpuscles and infections. We need the rainforests to reduce the emissions as well as to stabilize the climate. They absorb CO2, while cutting them down releases large amounts of the gas.

So, how can it be that there are powerful voices seriously arguing that the rainforests can, and indeed must, be entirely cleared? This is exactly what Brazil's "soy king," Blario Maggi, is demanding. While he stands to further enrich himself in the short term should this happen, he says it is a moral imperative to plant crops on this land. The fact that the land will merely become desert is not something he allows to penetrate his skull. Maggi urges that we have to take all opportunities to grow both food and biofuel for the starving masses. An efficient solution would be to convert those masses into green biofuel and turn Maggi into IKEA worker in China.

Prince Charles favors a scheme to offer financial compensation to the various vested interests profiting from the deforestation. That is tantamount to offering to be held to ransom, and a foolish carrot to hang out. Now we are showing willingness to be blackmailed into paying £30 billion a year to halt the tree slaughter. Developing nations are also keen to blackmail us into helping them out with becoming greener in their industry and energy production - even though our economies are crashing and we are in serious debt, while India and China are surging ahead. Globalists are keen to encourage this line of thinking since it means ditching national interests and moving instead towards political interdependence.

Why is it fine to bomb Iran for fear of their nuclear ambitions, yet not okay to militarily occupy the Amazon and stop corporations from destroying our vital rainforests? Failing to prevent the latter threatens a far more catastrophic outcome for all of the world and should be priority number one. In 1950 the rainforests covered 15% of the planet. Now they cover less than half of that. 78 million acres a year are being lost. Almost incredibly, ten million Indians used to live in harmony with the ecosystem of the forests five hundred years ago, with no ecological footprint - but now only 200,000 remain there. Ninety tribes were wiped out since 1900. Various species are going extinct at a rate of three every hour.

Let us have a moment's silence to think of the holocaust.

The people farming on the peripheries of the forest, who are pawns in the game of the corporations, can barely make ends meet. The big businesses exploit them. It has been calculated that we all pay an unacceptable price (understatement alert!) for the disappearing rainforests. The climate change it causes will devastate millions of the poorest people - not that the corporations care about "externalities" like that. Then there are the other money making opportunities that are being ignored. Take the pharmaceutical ingredients solely available from these ancient forests (which contain more than half of all species of plants, animals and insects) and also add the rich harvest of nuts, fruits and so on which can be sustainably reaped. There is no economic justification for deforestation. We should avoid buying tropical wood, soy and palm oil products. Let's make the Soy King a "has-bean"!