I would agree that biofuels should be limited, if the only use (and benefit) is to lower the price of gasoline.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this point. One of the things I think we all need to be is A LOT MORE EFFICIENT about how we use energy. It is good to increase the price of gasoline to make everyone more thoughtful about how it is used .... not decrease it. Whats wrong with another US$2-3 on the price of gasoline. Its would still be half the price of gas in Europe. American gasoline is the cheapest in the world - looking at major economically developed nations. The price needs to go up - not down. This is also a true test of how the general public perceives the energy problem. Surely if they want to conserve a finite resource, can't the American public take another US$2 per gallon. Or is it as Jim Maher states "If saving the planet required the American people to give up TV remote controls - could it be done ?"
ImranCan, what do you think of my contention that one can't characterize an "alarm bell" as false, just because our response to the perceived problem is not initially successful or is even counterproductive?
The alarm bell is false if there isn't a problem. The fact that 'repsonses' are destructive (eg. accelerated rain forest destruction or increased global hunger) just demonstrates how idiotic it is to ring alarm bells when there was never anything to get alarmed about. You need to BE right.
