James Fischer  wrote:>"cellulose" (switchgrass, et al) is a better choice, as it can be grown on land that would not be suitable for growing food.<

Not sure you are making me feel happier.  Growing energy crops on land unsuitable for farming sounds like less 'wild' land left for nature (which used to have 100% of land till we came along). So less bees, less wild seeds and berries, less butterflies and  birds, less for children to marvel at and realise what a wonderful planet we live on (actually more than just an industrial food production facility). 

Also, using less corn for fuel would leave more for food - so more food stocks for emergencies such as droughts - so politicians can continue to escape having to do something to avoid more humans. So the world population can be left to increase from 7 to 9 billions - then with more help from scientists who hail every discovery as progress, to 12 billions - to 15 to 20 billions, until the planet really does run out of resources.  And the final world famine really is horrific.  What a legacy for our grandchildren and their grand children.  

Bees have been said to be like the canaries in the mines, capable of giving early warning of deteriorating conditions. Would it not be better to keep our wild land and wild bees, what is left, and keep on developing ways to make fuel only from crop residues and other wastes? 

And perhaps from sustainably harvested sea weed? 

And from old brood wax that beekeepers burn? (But that would need an ingenious little gadget in the wood shed, like the ones that make diesel from used cooking oil). 

Robin  

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html