All helped along by well intentioned people like yourself ringing nonsensical alarm bells.
In general, without looking at the big picture, specific "solutions" usually end up just treating symptoms; overlooking the underlying cause.
I completely agree that this biofuel thing has been a relative disaster, so far.
Most of the time that I hear about some new "green" program or product, I find myself screaming at the absurdity of their "green reasoning."
I have never advocated using food for fuel.
This was quickly obvious to you (and to me), and probably to anyone who wasn't thinking only of short-term profits.
But where did this biofuels push come from?
Wasn't it the only "economically viable" option, out of a plethora of options proffered by scientists?
...and I know that when this first came up, scientists were talking about algae and waste matter as the bio-part; not foodstuffs! It was the big-businessfolks, who already had the corn/ethanol technology in place, that decided to go for the easiest quick profit (hey, the market will adjust).
The science-based, small start-ups, that I'm familiar with are experimenting with different high-oil biomass that grows on marginal soils; that's synergy.
However, I would suggest that arguments such as Nigel's, and the Bjorn Based Arguments, are the alarmist ones in this case.
They are creating the impression that scientist and social activists are the "enemies of poverty reduction."
I have been advocating that the poor and starving could be lifted out of poverty and disease by assisting with carbon sequestration (in the soil). This kind of solution is the only quick, short-term (40 yr.), non-technical method for GHG remediation available; and it would reduce the need to be so strict on emissions, over the short term (and there's the whole ...way to achieve Millennium Development Goals). This synergizes solutions; that's good business practice.
It sounds as if we have similar goals, but differ on how to reach them.
Business As Usual seems to have gotten us into this state.
Just because we try solving ancillary problems and we don't ever have wild success, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve and do it better as we develop. ...or words to that effect.
Social Darwinism isn't a good basis for a political philospohy. IMHO
We should try to be a bit more Type I.
It's only been within the past half century, or less, that we've even had the capability to attempt a coordinated, management program for global resources and services.
