At last a credible voice is questioning the madness of biofuels. The Royal Society is right to point out that not all biofuels are the same, and that the way they are produced must be considered carefully.
But a huge misconception still goes unchallenged. How can Brazilian ethanol be achieving an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions? The stuff is being burnt in cars, just as petrol is, with roughly a similar output of CO2. The argument that the ethanol is better in emissions terms rests on a false premise: that these emissions somehow don't count, because the carbon was previously extracted from the air as the plants grew. But plants were growing on that very same land and extracting carbon before biofuel production began. The conversion of sugar cane from sugar production to biofuel has not increased the overall carbon-extractive vegetation of the world. The 80% reduction would only be true if the Brazilians were ploughing up car parks and growing the sugar cane there.

Jon, London, UK

Jeremy Clarkson will love this.

Klaatu, New York, USA

This finding is hardly the explosion of a "green eco wacko myth" as asserted by the Texas commentator. To the contrary, environmental organizations have been warning for many years now that reliance on ethanol will do more harm than good.

John Callahan, St. Paul Mn USA,

Well - even the Egyptian did not build a perfect pyramid on their first attempt. Biofuel is a new area of focus and we do not have much research and information so reports like these helps us examine our alternative fuel sources.

In the USA, all we have are promises for the last 8 years about alternative fuel research and development but so far, far less has been done on that issue, which has set us back another decade.

Let not waste time and work on a solution together. We need as many alternative fuel sources as possible but sources that have far less impact on our environment than the greenhouse gases do today.

We all want our children and their children to live in a better world than we do. Or do we only care about our children living a richer lives than we do?

Naleen, Northern California,

Fat chance for nuclear. The Greens and the left are wedded to their bigotry. It's something to do with stupidity and class war I guess. You have to be dumb not to see the rotten effects of bio-fuels. Destruction and waste on a continent wide level especially in the east. Not one single politician in the West has said anything about planting trees. Our local authority and my next door neighbour have just cut down trees and hedges. So individuals and bureaucracy are equally to blame. Imagine a man with 2 children chops down a hedge because he wants a view! Stupid is the word.

E. Purgold, cambridge, UK

I just love it when another ' green eco wacko ' myth is exploded. I doubt if this will change anything as 'green ' is the new PC Religion. Here, one of the costs of ethanol is the rising cost of food. We are putting corn in our cars, and not our bellies. It is also subsidised to the tune of $1.90, thank you lobbyists. In addition ethanol has to be trucked, as it corrodes pipelines. More greenhouse gases, more accidents, more costs. God help everyone from the Peoples Republic of Brussels and their ' visions '.

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Tx

This is rather interesting

Harry Schumba, London, UK

Bio-fuels can only be a stop-gap solution anyway as the world has to be fed. With sub-Saharan Africa having to import basic foodstuffs and the cost of maize in South Africa having risen 25% in recent months with more to come, one reason being the USA's move to use crops for biofuel, so any long-term solution has to be only HYDROGEN which has the benefits of no importation of millions of of tonnes (or barrels) of base products, which in itself is also polluting, and the only way to achieve this is to finally admit that we have to have nuclear power stations and very soon. You can even make it in your garage.

Cut out the emotion and read the facts. This form of generation is now as safe as anything else in the world (remember Houston - BP and Buncefield as two examples) and the waste is manageable which cannot be said for CO2 or any other known energy source at this time.

The benefits are endless and far outweigh the Green's cries.

So why are we wasting time pussyfooting around?

B J Deller, Marbella, Spain

Geothermal energy anyone?

Bob, london,