you mean, The Biofuel Confusion

sorry to make a new post out of a reply but the server's got ADD, follows on from "The Biofuel Illusion"..

Jeezus - even when Americans broaden their minds they still stare at their navels. Sorry, sorry, it is part of a crucial issue and yay for bringing it up. Yes, we must reduce energy use. Yes, we must be more efficient in what we do use. Yes, there is an inordinate amount of resources consumed in less developed countries so that the fat of the land can stay fat.

BUT, how is the argument for biofuels one that exists in opposition to the argument for sustainable use? If this article represents a legitimate concern, well, forget about it. It's great that the author has taken the time to do research on a critical issue, but a shame for them to have stopped here.

Biofuels are having horrific impacts on agriculture and forests in Malaysia, Brazil, Borneo, to name but a few. BUT, biofuel is almost a meaningless term and this needs to be understood so that individuals can make a difference by the choices they make. Except for Mission Biofuels (who should be erased), biodiesel in Australia is being made commercially and at high volume from recycled vegetable oils and tallow by-products. It doesn't destroy rainforest, it doesn't encourage GMO crops, and whether by itself or combined with petrodiesel it significantly cuts greenhouse and toxic particulate emissions.

And, conveniently, studies not made so widely available by the US Government Departments which hold them found that for every unit of energy invested in locating, extracting, refining, and transporting petrofuels, less than one unit of energy is returned - what a sweet deal! Biodiesel, and most likely ethanol if Brazil's sugar cane powered cars are anything to go by, returned from 3 to 4 units of energy for every unit of energy that went into the refining and production process.

America, as the land of fast food outlets, could easily follow this genuinely sustainable path. What American "eco warriors" should be targeting, rather than isolated agendas and different viewpoints from shared ground is the ridiculously ill-advised and disproportionate spending of their government in fighting a war that doesn't exist with an enemy that they are strengthening every day, while ignoring and indeed being the major contributor to the one thing that actually does threaten millions upon millions of innocent lives.

But that might see a downturn in the recovery and reconstruction sectors. . . Halliburden. . .

If Ms Olmstead swings back by here, you might want to go forth and look up the MIT GreenFuels algae conversion project and Jatropha as a feedstock, and check out the response articles to the George Monbiot article on biofuels. You might also want to lobby for an International Ethical Activities Bill, holding multinationals accountable in America for their activities overseas. . But that might also screw the Regime (gross to call them a government when they weren't elected, hey).