The Oregonian gets Bold

Finally - the Oregonian ran a front page article about "biofuels" - that provided insights into this politically savvy, but factually errant approach. [1] They were being very bold - to go against that normal politically-safe notion that (all) bio-fuels are carbon-reducing. And [2] they were mostly right, but lumped in bio-diesel along with (corn) ethanol. There is "good" bio and "bad" bio: consideration for the energy-to-produce relative to energy-content-of bio-fuels needs to be taken into account.

Of course, for some time now, this blog has been discussing the concerns of blindly jumping on the anything-but-oil bandwagon, at the expense of logic. Yes, both supply and demand & importing oil are causing price increases and political instability. And yes, something needs to be done (solutions, elsewhere int his blog)... but (corn) ethanol can't provide the full solution - without causing a run-up in food prices, and increase in carbon-release! Sugar ethanol is much better, but is causing quicker deforestation. Links to the front page and second part of the article.