"Biofuels" have shown great promise in weaning the world away from the use of petrofuels. They're less polluting, renewable, and all that acreage (primarily corn and soybeans) will go a long way toward absorbing that excess CO2 in the atmosphere.

Not so fast, say critics in the science community. First of all, they say, there's no proof that "biofuels" are any better than their fossil-fuel counterparts when it comes to greenhouse emissions. The other concern is what it may do the planet's ecology. The rush to plant additional acreage for biofuel production could put rainforests at risk, deplete fresh water supplies, deprive wildlife of habitat and eventually, affect the world's food supply. 

It comes down to deciding whose needs are greater: the 800 million people all over the world who own and drive automobiles, or the billions of others who survive on a day and already spend half their income feeding themselves.

Biofuels are not a new concept. Ford's famous "flivver," the Model T, was originally designed to run on alcohol, while the Diesel engine was designed to run on vegetable oil. Economics, as usual ended those ideas - back at the beginning of the last century, petroleum-based fuels were easier and cheaper to produce. The oil crises of the 1970's got many countries rethinking the idea.

The full article awaits after the jump!