What kind of fuel were you burning when you drove up the Oregon coast and saw the clearcut hillside? Can we credit petrol with facilitating your insiration to write this cautionary editorial?

Deforestation is the concern you raise, before "we blindly accept biofuels". First of all, you misquote the amount of European land reportedly to be needed to supply enough biofuel to replace European petrol use, at 70%. The number reported was in fact 40%. You cite scientists who say that continuing to burn petrol while planting forests is more environmentally friendly than a transition to "liquid biofuel"? But in this suggested alternative, who will plant these forests as we continue burning petrol? If demand for biofuels were to cause clearcutting, would you also say that continued use of fossil fuels cause entire forests to be planted instead? And if, as you suggest, there is a blind rush to biofuels, could it be any blinder than our perpetual use of petrol? Are you suggesting that our use of petrol is sustainable?!

If you are an American, your government is spilling innocent blood for oil. Perhaps our overall consumption of fuel is the problem. Consumers promote corporate control of the earth and it's resources. And in return, corporations enable our fuel hungry lifestyles, i.e. "freedom".

Our habits need to be challenged. And any careful adoption of an alternative to petrol is a breakthrough! I think your article "coddles" a reluctance to change behaviour. Your strongly cationary article makes world biofuel conversion sound precipitously near at hand, when in fact it is very slow, owing in part to habit-based rationalizations, and a nearly sociopathic reliance on petrol.

If you assume large corporations would take over control biofuel production, then you have given in to despair. Have courage. Your article seems to paint Corporate America gung-ho to exploit biofuel, without also noting that exploitation of petroleum now involves the spilling of innocent blood. Like any "widget" or product in a corporate controlled world, a biofuel alternative will involve destruction as long as it is profitable. Corporations will not care if any alternative solutions is sustainable or not. The profit motive is morally blind. First we must be willing to change our habits.

I've looked at a study of vehicle emissions from using veggy fuel in a diesel engine. I would be happy to it pass along to you. I found that on the whole, burning bio-diesel is 50% as bad as petro-diesel in terms of vehicle emissions. Indeed we should act with discretion in choosing fuels, but your article promotes a level of caution that would have us comfortably remain in our habits as a matter of principle, because it does so without challenging our reliance on habits that burn petrol in a frenzy. The corporate interest in petroleum is much stronger than that for biofuels. I think you should have balanced your portrayal of bio-fuel over-exuberance with a portrayal of the *overall* effects of maintaining our daily supply of petrol.