The problem is most, if not all, of the alternatives proposed to replace petroleum either end up

1. Using more petroleum to make then they replace or

2. Even if they aren't energy negative can't replace enough petroleum to make any impact on energy security.

An example of this is Robert's comment

The simplest solution is for people to eat less meat - especially cow meat.

This comment shows a stunning ignorance of the root causes of environmental destruction, which is subsidies for grain production and mandates for biofuel usage.

Furthermore the comments on cow meat show even more ignorance by completely ignoring the fact that ranchers, raising cattle, have preserved massive amounts of carbon sinks in the form on natural range land habitats.

If you really are interested in preserving the environment push to end ag subsidies and biofuel mandates.

Furthermore, if you are really interested in eating ethically either.

1. Go vegan

2. If you can't go vegan leave beef in your diet.

Cattle have far better quality of life then animals used to produce any other source of animal protein and it is the most ethical choice for animal protein in a diet.

Just a few weeks ago the EU Commission got a report saying the same thing, but found it politically distasteful, so they did their best to ignore it.

I guess it was one of those "inconvenient truths".

As Alex pointed out it was not the scientists promoting bio-fuels, particularly not corn as a resource for bio-fuels. Few who do not stand to directly profit from corn as bio-fuel source (or those who represent them) think it is a good idea.

It has been obvious from the outset to all who have chosen to educate themselves on the subject that the carbon footprint benefits of bio-fuels and environmental costs is highly dependent on crop choice and land use considerations. For instance, most moderately knowledgeable people knew from the beginning that converting Indonesian and Malaysian rain forest to palm oil plantations was a net negative for GHG emissions and a larger net negative for the environment. These articles and others did not create that understanding, rather they refined it.

The abstract of one of the two articles* is instructive.

Increasing energy use, climate change, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels make switching to low-carbon fuels a high priority. Biofuels are a potential low-carbon energy source, but whether biofuels offer carbon savings depends on how they are produced. Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a ‘biofuel carbon debt’ by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions these biofuels provide by displacing fossil fuels. In contrast, biofuels made from waste biomass or from biomass grown on abandoned agricultural lands planted with perennials incur little or no carbon debt and offer immediate and sustained GHG advantages.

The abstract** of another interesting article on the subject says,

Biofuels derived from low-input high-diversity (LIHD) mixtures of native grassland perennials can provide more usable energy, greater greenhouse gas reductions, and less agrichemical pollution per hectare than can corn grain ethanol or soybean biodiesel. High-diversity grasslands had increasingly higher bioenergy yields that were 238% greater than monoculture yields after a decade. LIHD biofuels are carbon negative because net ecosystem carbon dioxide sequestration (4.4 megagram hectare–1 year–1 of carbon dioxide in soil and roots) exceeds fossil carbon dioxide release during biofuel production (0.32 megagram hectare–1 year–1). Moreover, LIHD biofuels can be produced on agriculturally degraded lands and thus need to neither displace food production nor cause loss of biodiversity via habitat destruction.

In this case, as with global climate change, the science should be our guide. You seem to agree that science should be our guide re: ag subsidies for bio-fuels, why not for climate change?

* Fargione, J. el al (2008). Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt. Science, Feb 8, 2008. (subscription required)
** full text requires subscription

Aren't corn prices artifically, harmfully low as it is?

Triumph, I'm not sure than encouraging Brazil to produce more sugar cane is that great an idea. Although Lulu has rejected the idea so far, if the demand gets high enough the temptation to start clearing rainforest will rise, too.

Dave, I agree with your assessment--as well as our invocation of the switchgrass issue.

The major point being that we should look at what the reality of the bipartisan love affair with ethanol--its largely a giveaway to profitable companies with questionable positive affects on the environment.

Seems like this statement could be used for another core belief.

Since everyone "knew" Global-warming was a good idea and the "science was settled