Regarding the biofuels story, here are a couple relevant stories I'd come across recently:
Europe May Ban Imports of Some Biofuel Crops
A New, Global Oil Quandary: Costly Fuel Means Costly Calories

A few days ago, I received in the mail the newsletter from one of my state legislators, Phyllis Kenney. And I started reading her trumpeting what a great environmentalist she was because she was sponsoring or supporting a bill to mandate that the Washington state government use only biofuels by a certain year. And I can't begin to say how upset I was. If the planet has friends like this, it doesn't need enemies.

Our region seems to have this long roster of faux green politicians--Chris Gregoire, Greg Nickels, Ron Sims, Maria Cantwell, etc.--who like to talk a good game about the environment and climate change and then make cosmetic, meaningless proposals about it.

In a sense, I can't necessarily blame them for their hypocrisy. They may simply be capturing the mood, and the hypocrisy, of us, the public. I hope I'm wrong.

I suppose I should take more caffeine, then.

I was pleased that someone respectable put the US on the list of torturers, we deserve it. Too bad we have a big enough fist to make them say it isn't so.

I think biofuels are going to be very important, particularly biodiesel; but we don't have the engineering down yet. The possiblity of using algea and food by-products is particularly promising. Plus, food has been too cheap, leading to obesity and farmers going under. So food being more expensive is not necessarily a bad thing.

Re: vid clip...waah, I'm rich, overpaid and playing a meaningless sport when people are dying all over the world.

Cressona, by 'a certain year', a set of new, better biofuels may be available.

The problem with this debate is that 'biofuels' are such a heterogeneous group of technologies, and the details are too often neglected in the media, and by legislators. Ethanol from corn, for example, is a stupid stupid stupid option. But ethanol from sugar cane is great. Biodiesel from palm oil has it's own set of problems, but biodiesel from algae grown on agricultural waste and smokestack gas is a potential panacea.

Despite its current teething problems, we ought not to throw this baby out with the bathwater.

that article about the kid arrested in the bhutto assassination is subscription only. do you have a link that doesn't require a password?

Why do you have to post THAT clip of TO? You should repost some of that Barber footage.

Fans were calling Jessica Simpson "Yoko Romo" which is funny.

@6 - Try
this.

Eep. I should probably stay away from HTML on Monday mornings.

@6 now linked to a similar BBC story that shouldn't be behind a retarded firewall.

So food being more expensive is not necessarily a bad thing.

It's a very bad thing for the rest of the world population.

boyd main @5:

Cressona, by 'a certain year', a set of new, better biofuels may be available.

The problem with this debate is that 'biofuels' are such a heterogeneous group of technologies, and the details are too often neglected in the media, and by legislators. Ethanol from corn, for example, is a stupid stupid stupid option. But ethanol from sugar cane is great. Biodiesel from palm oil has it's own set of problems, but biodiesel from algae grown on agricultural waste and smokestack gas is a potential panacea.

Despite its current teething problems, we ought not to throw this baby out with the bathwater.

Tell you what, boyd main. If our regional passion for biofuels really is purely about the environment, let's couple the Olympia legislation with some legislation comparable to what they're considering in the EU. Washington state can only go 100% biofuels by a certain date if those biofuels meet the same green standards the EU is considering.

Somehow I think that's a no-go. There's just too much money to be made from biofuels. And just as there's a powerful biofuels lobby in Washngton, DC (see Archer Daniels Midland), I can only imagine there's a powerful biofuels lobby taking shape in Olympia.

BTW, to say "Biodiesel from palm oil has it's [sic] own set of problems" -- that's a real understatement. Compared to the multitude of problems surrounding getting fuel from palm oil (including exacerbating climate change through deforestation), oil and gasoline look downright clean and green.

We all know that living off of oil is unsustainable. Solar and wind technology isn't there yet, and may never be. But we can't start trying to build around plant-based fuel, because that will make food expensive. How about nuclear plants? No, no, no - too much waste!

Okay, then - what's left, exactly?

Cressona - I'd be more than happy to see Olympia enact sustainability and life-cycle carbon emission standards for mandated biofuels. That would be great. Obviously this 'certain date' you keep mentioning would necessarily be at least three to five years into the future, to allow time for the technological advances that are required.

What is interesting is that in your first comment, as with much of the recent backlash, you didn't even acknowledge that there are possibilities for next-gen green biofuels to make a difference.

Certainly there are things happening under the rubric of 'biofuels' that make petroleum look clean and green. But do we want to look at those bad things, throw our hands up, and accept that petroleum is as clean and green as we'll ever get for liquid transportation fuels?

@14,

The solution is a little bit of everything, with good scientific research rather than wishful thinking helping decide the right mix.

The underlying reality is that even with a mix of new technologies, we need to lower our overall consumption by using resources more efficiently and sustainably. We probably need to focus on local and regional sustainability in the long term, without destroying trade or condemning the third world to even quicker starvation in the short term. But the best thing we can do in the developed world is to stop wasting resources. Stop driving when we don't have to, and use mass transit instead. Stop living in distant suburbs, and build better cities and close-in suburbs that attract people of all age and economic backgrounds. Stop building houses out of poorly insulated materials and making up the difference with energy-intensive heating and cooling. Capture waste heat for energy generation wherever possible. Grow food in urban and suburban areas to reduce the demand for imported food, even if it means food is more expensive (and prioritize food bank and food "stamp"/card programs starting with local sources, to break the dysfunctional relationship with corporate farms.

We're talking a mix of changes to the way we live that collectively are revolutionary. I think the only way that becomes possible is if we have an effective carbon cap-and-trade system to help reprioritize market choices. That's why we can't just hope that technology will save us, because we're long past the point of that working, and it's that mentality that got us in this mess in the first place.

tsm - plant-based fuels don't have to make food expensive. That's the myth I'm trying to disabuse people of. Switchgrass, jatropha, and algae all show enormous potential as sources of biomass for fuels. These aren't edible commodities, and they grow on land that is currently non-arable.