Comments

Stories about producing any sort of biofuels completely ignore the fact that droughts are a part of nature. We don't know when another will happen. Relying on biofuels for our energy needs puts us at the mercy of ever changing and natural climate variances. "Only 9.3 percent of U.S. cropland would be required" What increase in food prices does this equate to? Will we be able to increase the amount of land used for farming if an ethenol process using Miscanthus becomes viable?

I love articles like this. It points out "feel-good" things we can do to save the planet. Not much thought is put into the consequences of these "feel-good" actions. Indoctrinating kindergartners "about the value of nature" equates to scaring them with pictures of polar bears floating on icebergs. There are already reports of children waking up in the middle of the night terrified of global warming killing the polar bears. (washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/15/AR2007041501164_pf.htmL)Producing "biofuels from native grasses, not from monoculture crops" completely ignores the fact that droughts happen infrequently. We don't know when another will happen. Relying on biofuels for our energy needs puts us at the mercy of ever changing and natural climate variances.

To Illuminatiscott; Venus's atmosphere is composed of (by volume) 96.5% carbon dioxide; (CO2) 3.5% nitrogen (N2). (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Venusatmos.htm) This is the major cause of Venus's runaway greenhouse effect. Your indication of CO2 increases in Earth's atmosphere to ".0004% by roughly 2010" is hardly an equivilent comparison. This article is definitely interesting. I've also read that natural oil production continues to happen today. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991) (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/5863/604)