my new hero

[Occhidiangela]

I think he meant the possible dilemma of foodstuffs being used for automotive fuel, when there's a huge amount of starving people in the world.  It's obvious that the answer is starving people should be used for fuel instead.  It's definitely an abundant resource. 

  I can't wait to drive a car that gets a 100 km on a single hobo.  At least for city driving.
[right][snapback]100913[/snapback][/right]

There is no dilemma. There is considerable land lying fallow, not under cultivation. The longer term qestion is water availability, which makes a "turn water into fuel" decision take a few intermediate steps. Water + photosynthesis and plant = Corn + harvesting + processing + distilling = fuel. :lol:

There is a choice.

No farmer is required to grow corn for someone else, no land must be cultivated solely to ensure that every mouth on the planet is filled. Corn is a commodity, and an opportunity cost comes with any choice on how to consume it: fuel for the human body or fuel for a small generator? Consider that the generator brings electricity to a village, which allows a doctor to save a few lives in his small clinic or a dentist to treat bad teeth. ;) Or an ambulance to carry an injured worker, on an irrigation canalproject, to a hospital to save his life.

Another choice: Do we pave that 70 acres over there, and put up houses or apartments since "affordable housing" is in short supply, or do we grow oats and corn on it?

Same sort of choice, only in this case, the decision isn't as flexible. It is almost irreversible, resource/commodity's usage wise, since I have not often seen land unpaved and returned to agricultural usage.

The advantage corn has is that one year you could sell it for fuel, another year for food. Depends on what is needed more at the time.

Occhi