This just goes to show you the world has no shortage of arrogant rich people trying to do something good for the world with "green policies" that comes back to bite everyone else.... Tsame thing type of thing happened with DDT being banned in the name of environmentalism, doesn't anyone remember? We ban the cheapest, most effective way of combatting mosquitoes and malaria, and then wonder why millions die of malaria in 3rd world countries? And there was never any real threat to bird eggs?! Environmental pseudo-science has killed millions already, now we're going to condemn millions more to poverty and starvation at the altar of environmentalism...? We never seem to learn that we need research, facts, and proof about our environment and the world aroudn us not knee-jerk reactions, and it needs to be a worldwide effort. That and politics HAVE to be taken out of it. It's not a convervative vs. liberal thing like the media would have you believe. In any case making laws to force companies and people to act on a small group of peoples THEORIES about environmental science is counterproductive. Facts. Research. Common sense. Plunging millions in to povert so coushy rich us coushy rich Americans and Europeans can feel better about the way we treat our planet is NOT the answer. Biofuel is not the answer. We need to drill for oil EVERYWHERE we can find it and dedicate some of the profits to finding a REAL, international solution to our impending energy crisis.

I agree with you overall hence why I voted you up. But I think America should put its interests first just like every other country when deciding to use biofuels or any other choice it makes. I do agree that biofuel does not help America and we should be drilling more to reduce our dependence on foreign oil to include off the coasts and not allow a state such as Florida or California to have a veto power over what can be done in waters that are outside of state jurisdiction. The rest of the world has a double standard when it comes to nations policies, one for America and another for the rest of the world.

These guys cite figures that only 3% of the recent run-up in food prices is due to ethanol or other biofuel production:
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1663/70/
I'd love to know why Oxfam thinks biofuel is the primary cause of the spike in food prices. I haven't seen anything on their website showing actual figures.

... With you counterpoint BobM, but like I said, we need research and facts. We wallow in our own ignorance and barely know what really is in our best interest. And 1 to America being held to different standards than everyone else, absolutley ridiculous, and as a country America should make decisions that benefit America.

Although I agree that we need to think bigger, and work on longer-term solutions and strategies to the challenges we face rather than implement poorly-understood, knee-jerk solutions, we also can't get bogged down in analysis paralysis trying to make sure we know every single aspect of a problem and potential solution before we implement anything.

We act on theories all the time, in many fields. In some areas, absolute proof and concrete research is very difficult or impossible to achieve. Should we do nothing then and watch the world fall apart around us because we don't know for sure that the solution we have in front of us won't have some side-effects?

In this case, I agree that biofuels were a poorly though out, short-sighted answer that catered to those that wanted to be able to pat themselves on the back for doing something good for the world. I think you take the argument a little too far though, and generalize the situation in a way that may cause us to wait too long to take action in situations that require a rapid response.

Imagine that we find a meteor heading towards the Earth - we have a month before it impacts the planet and wipes out all life, and we start working on a way to save ourselves. Several possible solutions are proposed, but we demand proof that (if we survive) the solutions won't cause other problems. The scientists can't get the proof in time, so we don't take any action. We're all dead.

The point is that the situation is very complicated - we know there's a lot we don't know, and what we think we know we're not sure about, but if we're right we may need to take action soon. It's not easy to make the right choices all the time, but it's easy for us to look back and criticize.

Every little environmental hiccup is the next meteor. If people wanted to get serious about green energy, we would be building nuke power plants everywhere. The flood of cheap electric would have everything we do powered by electricity (including transportation) before the next decade is out.

Bannan plantations in Costa Rica are being sold, the trees cut down and planted with other trees... why? People buying carbon credits to lead a so called "carbon neutral lifestyle". It's more profitable for the growers to turn it over for "carbon credits" than to grow food. This has the net effect of putting Costa Ricans out of work, reducing a food source, and only gaining a partial carbon gain b/c you're cutting down existing trees to plant more. If you continually cut down trees and replant, you'll sink some carbon, but I wonder if that's really worth it. Carbon's only part of the GW equation.

Yes, as the old adage goes, hindsight is 20/20, and sometimes you need to react quickly, but the problem is the world is full of people who want to SCARE us about the next environmental disaster, whether it is for greed for money or noteriety, or something else, they act like the sky is falling *all the time*.
We, or are children, may in fact face quite the crisis. I don't (personally,though I'm not an expert) believe that crisis is going to be global warming which tends to be the arguement for biofuel anyways. I do believe it will be energy, unless we have some sort of breakthrough in nuclear fusion or something similar. In any case if you want a good example of us mucking about it things we don't understand (but think we do) look into the park services handling of yellowstone nat'l park's animal populations, I believe it was back in the 30's (don't quote me on the date though.) It's a good read and, in my opinion, somewhat mirrors our dealings with the environment of late.

"Every little environmental hiccup is the next meteor. If people wanted to get serious about green energy, we would be building nuke power plants everywhere."

Unfortunately nuclear power is by no means green.. The nuclear waste from the reactors is still hazardous,and the increased water temp around the plant messes with the waters ecosystem.

Also nuclear is not renewable there is only so much uranium around and once its gone its gone.

Think we need to be looking at photovoltaic's and wind for electricity, or at a great stretch a hydrogen fusion reactor (though science is still a long way from that ) and possibly reconsidering the combustion engine completely. Biofuel is a substitute to the problem not the solution.