Could you please tell me where you found this...or what it even means...."corn ethanol takes 167 years to produce enough greenhouse-gas savings to make it as green as regular old oil." That figure was regarding deforestation, not oil.

In your Time magazine article, Brazil is cited as "an exemplar of the allure of biofuels. Sugar growers here have a greener story to tell than do any other biofuel producers. They provide 45% of Brazil's fuel (all cars in the country are able to run on ethanol) on only 1% of its arable land. They've reduced fertilizer use while increasing yields, and they convert leftover biomass into electricity. Marcos Jank, the head of their trade group, urges me not to lump biofuels together: 'Grain is good for bread, not for cars. But sugar is different.'"

I'm getting a bit tired myself of people jumping on the anti-"biofuel" wagon when they're only talking about corn ethanol myself.

http://greyfalcon.net/brazil
http://greyfalcon.net/brazil2
http://greyfalcon.net/brazil3

LOL...I would suggest you take a look at levels of ag subsidies before the neo-con's compared to now

Rather than just make a declaritive statement, show us. Prove it to us with links and maybe some calcs.

Could you please tell me where you found this...or what it even means...."corn ethanol takes 167 years to produce enough greenhouse-gas savings to make it as green as regular old oil." That figure was regarding deforestation, not oil.

That figure came from a study in Science. Corn ethanol is destroying rainforest by displacement effects. Farmers are  creating arable land to replace the 35,000 square mile hole ripped in the human food chain by corn ethanol last year.

Here is an exerpt of what followed the quote you pulled:

Jank expects production to double by 2015 with little effect on the Amazon. "You'll see the expansion on cattle pastures and the Cerrado," he says.

So far, he's right. There isn't much sugar in the Amazon. But my next stop was the Cerrado, south of the Amazon, an ecological jewel in its own right. The Amazon gets the ink, but the Cerrado is the world's most biodiverse savanna, with 10,000 species of plants, nearly half of which are found nowhere else on earth, and more mammals than the African bush. In the natural Cerrado, I saw toucans and macaws, puma tracks and a carnivorous flower that lures flies by smelling like manure. The Cerrado's trees aren't as tall or dense as the Amazon's, so they don't store as much carbon, but the region is three times the size of Texas, so it stores its share.

At least it did, before it was transformed by the march of progress--first into pastures, then into sugarcane and soybean fields. In one field I saw an array of ovens cooking trees into charcoal, spewing Cerrado's carbon into the atmosphere; those ovens used to be ubiquitous, but most of the trees are gone. I had to travel hours through converted Cerrado to see a 96-acre (39 hectare) sliver of intact Cerrado, where a former shopkeeper named Lauro Barbosa had spent his life savings for a nature preserve. "The land prices are going up, up, up," Barbosa told me. "My friends say I'm a fool, and my wife almost divorced me. But I wanted to save something before it's all gone."

Your skepticism would be even more valuable if it were applied more liberally all around. When Jank said:

"You'll see the expansion on cattle pastures and the Cerrado," it should have crossed your mind that the cows will now need new pasture and that the Cerrado is also a diverse carbon sink.

Also, when he said that they only use 1% of their arable land for ethanol, didn't you wonder where they would get more arable land, as they expand ethanol production, without destroying carbon sinks?

Considering that Jank is the president of the Brazilian Institute for International Trade, did it cross your mind that whatever he might have to say might be just slightly biased in favor of Brazilian ethanol?

And why didn't you check to see if anything he said was even true?

Here is what another skeptical thinker like yourself had to say:

It does contain some errors. First, the author repeats (and actually embellishes) the claim that ethanol "provide(s) 45% of Brazil's fuel." As I have shown previously, from actual energy usage statistics, it is about 17% of transportation fuel on a volumetric basis, and 10% on an energy equivalent basis.

So, in the end, as far as skeptical thinkers are concerned, you have a lot of stiff competition.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

greyflcn: Brazilian sugarcane provides 45% of their gasoline.

biod: Rather than just make a declaritive statement, show us.

What about that hilarious 167 year assertion of yours? Can you please give it to us as it appeared in Science or anywhere? You have taken it WAY out of context from the magazine article you cited.

You can cite 3 year old studies done by bloggers and speculate on future expansion all you want. It doesnt change the success that Brazil has had w/ ethanol! As for Jank being biased, I hope so. I love that they have become powerful enough to stand up to our "free-trade" machine (FTAA).  8)