I am against biofuel due the huge amount logging needed to make space to grow the crop in the first place. A short term fix with long term detrimental effects which will touch everyone.
Branden, you're repeating twice:-) But it's right: "moderate emission savings are far outweighed by greater emissions from deforestation"
Using food for fuel is penny un-wise and pound foolish. Especially corn! It is the basis of so many products.People are starving as we curtail food distribution to drive to Wal-Mart to buy cat food! Ehtanol is no panacea as a fuel, it can't be transported in pipes, and requires more energy to produce than oil by leaps and bounds.
Biofuels raise food prices and add to the starvation problem. There are much better alternatives - solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen, you name it.
Most people seem to be ignorant of the fact that bio fuels also release Carbon dioxide. Solar, wind and nuclear energy hold key to the future as they do not release Carbon dioxide!
Biofuels could be wise...but not by the current way it's being generated. Government subsidies are pushing bio fuels too fast and are inflating the price of food. We were too quick to create fuel from renewable crops, it's created a problem that is very hard to change. There are different crops that can be harvested and energy extracted using enzymatic techniques, but we must wait until this is perfected before bio fuels are explored any further.
While I'm not an expert on the subject, burning any fuel produces CO2. I wouldn't expect biofuel usage to make any positive impact on the cumulative CO2 emissions. This combined with the huge land area required makes me think that we should keep looking if we want to ween our dependency on fossil fuels.


Jatropha trees grow on marginal land in countries such as India, Mozambique, Malawi and Tanzania. Each seed produces up to 40 per cent of its mass in oil, and jatropha can be grown in otherwise non-arable areas, leaving prime land available for food crops, according to the airline
There are bio fuels that are more than from corn. Some, such as Diesel derived from algae can be produced in high density, thus less land use.
Those against it have flawed math or narrow views. Read more into it.
I voted for biofuels but my true feelings dictate that I clarify. I personally believe biofuels as they are currently mandated is complete and utter nonsense, both economically and environmentally. However, the pickle we find ourselves in is one that requires solutions we have yet to find. The very solution COULD be biofuels.
The oil companies are taking advantage of hard working people, like you and myself.
We have a oppurtunity to break free from the hands that control us and be apart of something that will benifit the rest of humanity.
I urge all of you to research biofuels more before passing judgment on something that can not only be the energy source of the future, but a by product food source as well.
1. Biofuels use renewable recources.
2. It will provides employment in many rural one-industry towns critically dependent upon their natural wood resource such as in the states of Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, Alabama, Arkansas, etc
3. It is a high-tech driven industry and has the most possibility to become a "hot" economic spot that will significantly contribute the national economical growth.
Biofuels it's good idea!
I make Biodiesel from UCO (Used Cooking Oil) and help dispose of a waste material by turning it into a great fuel.
One of the people on the "against" column says it produces 25 % less power. This is not the case with Biodiesel. 5 % is closer to the mark.
Why do we have to be FOR or AGAINST? Surely, like anything, biofuels have a place in the spectrum of solutions to climate change. No one would, in their right mind, support clearing forest to plant biofuel crops, nor advocate diverting food crops to produce fuel. However I can see a place for biodiesel made from algae or WVO supplying heavy transport vehicles. Lets steer clear of silver bullet solutions and focus on holistic solutions.