In this whole debate, why are you the only person who has said this? This is probably the first unbiased and independent look at the problem that I've ever read. A little reason has been injected into the fray. Thank you very much.

Thank you for shedding some light on this very complex issue. As long as the developing world's rural peoples' only economic option is to burn their forests, nothing will stop it. We need to protect our carbon sinks even while we diversify our fuel sources. We mustn't forget the need to share our resources with the developing world so they can earn money money from sustainable farming, not forest burning.

- Anna Clark, EarthPeople

You say that the reason they burn forests is because they can't afford high-yield seeds or fertilizer. Are you saying that using high-yield seeds and fertilizer are better than burning forests? I've read for 10 yrs running now that high-yield seeds and the toxic chemical fertilizers that are required for their use (mind you, the fertilizer comes courtesy of the same company that sells the seeds) will poison their land and water as they have been poisoning ours for years, and now those of India too which is running out of usable land because their land is toxic and eroded from this chemical recipe! Understand that high-yield seeds and the fertilizer they require are no solution, as bad as global warming, or at least on par. Neither is a solution.

While this debate is going on you also have the "corn is bad for you crusade". If that is true maybe it actualy makes sense to turn it into ethanol! I feel for the farmers; they can't possibly do the right thing with so many extreem views out there...

Folks can debate about whether ethanol from corn, sugar cane, switch-grass, etc is better or worse. But they all miss an important point. The chemical called ethanol is a terrible fuel.

The majority of processing energy is water removal. Pure ethanol is hygroscopic, which means it sucks water out of the air, pipelines gas tanks, whatever. So it can only be transported by tanker truck, not far more efficient pipelines.

The advantages are that it does burn (but not as well as many other fuels), and that it has powerful lobbyists and farm interests behind it.