not a mistake, as in the fact that co2 is required by plants so we are now giving the pants more of what they need so they can prsper

This coming from a University of Michigan faculty member? Am I living in an alternate universe? I live in Ann Arbor where Bernie and Hillary are idolized. I image this guy's office has been moved to a closet and his parking space moved to somewhere in Ypsilanti. I still doubt that CO2 has much to do with weather but it is refreshing to see an academic challenge an established premise. Perhaps some of his colleagues will emerge from behind closed doors and support this guy. I'll stay tuned.

Glad to see this analysis- at least some facts finally being aired. But of course the underlying thesis is still completely wrong. There is NO correlation between CO2 levels and global warming. This is borne out over the centuries and recently with no global warming for 17 years despite the increases in CO2 levels as opposed to the massive warming predicted by the "models" and Al Gore. Now that he has woken up to the biofuels farce maybe he will come around to the actual facts on climate change. Of all the many problems we face, this is not one of them.

"We are from the government and we are here to help you."

Reading that again, I probably could have worded things better.

Producing ethanol drives up the production of corn artificially, but since most is going to ethanol and being wasted, it drives up the price of corn and corn products by producing an artificial shortage. If the lands which are going to produce corn for ethanol were being allocated efficiently to other harvestable crops, the additional yields in those crops would drive down their respective market prices due to higher supply. So really all that is happening is that we are artificially and destructively raising prices on everything while gaining nothing.

That better?

Like they say in the old commie anti-war song: "When will they ever learn?"

Did you mean driving up prices on other crops?

Bad for us, but good for concentration of power in politicians. Unless we take action, by default politicians will enslave us.

I never liked the sound of Biofuels, especially since we already have a food crisis globally as to start using corn and other resources for more combustion. This result tends to be the case with the bureaucratic, politically correct yet none effective postures many times assumed by governments to say "we´re dealing with it" when they´re actually just creating another loop hole.

It´s obvious that the world doesn´t need this kind of solution, but rather to investigate on more effective and renewable energies, as well as to learn to negotiate with the status quo that most likely invests in preventing other ways and/or solutions because, let´s face; the game is rigged. Don´t want to come off as too pesimistic here, for solutions have been found and efficient ways have already been proven, being held down and restrained by all the "red tape".

Yes. There are natural carbon sequestration mechanisms in the biosphere and they maintain a safe balance between CO2 and Oxygen. It is not a good idea to screw with something that has worked for millions of years. When there is an increase in atmospheric carbon vegetation responds by increased growth to consume it. Most AGW models do not take this into consideration.

Just another example of why government central planning is always a bad idea. Politicians are never smart enough because they are driven by ideology instead of understanding.

"I'm not sure how much extra energy you get out of the process of growing corn, turning it to ethanol, and then burning it for energy."

That answer has already been tallied and it is a net negative. Producing ethanol costs more in energy than it produces. As a market side effect, it also drives up the place of corn and corn products and misappropriates land for corn production that normally would have been used for other crops, thus driving down their prices as well. The reach of these policies goes far beyond just trying to destroy gasoline-based engines.

This article has a lot of "true" data, but it is misleading, by summarizing the data, including the dominant, criminally wasteful ethanol to the mix.

Corn ethanol is a complete loser as a biofuel. Sugar Cane Ethanol is far better, but not suitable for most of the US. Vegetable oil in a diesel cycle works fine, and regardless of transportation costs/CO2, is overwhelmingly the best solar power available in kW/acre. Straight vegetable oil (SVO) works fine. Waste vegetable oil i(WVO) s another, more limited supply.

Vegetable oil in a diesel or gas turbine, is a responsible option, not the folly of greenie fools.

No, I do not support AWG, but I do consider eliminating dependence on oil the overwhelmingly most effective defense against terrorism. As such, and only as such, I can see a reason for government involvement as military function. However, the rest of this nonsense, solar farm, wind subsidies, ethanol, and Prius's are self-righteous fascist bullying.

Its really shocking how much momentum a bad idea can have in politics.

I am outside my area, but I think it may be worse than this article suggests. Even setting aside the long-term costs of CO2 emissions, I'm not sure how much extra energy you get out of the process of growing corn, turning it to ethanol, and then burning it for energy.

I vaguely remember an episode of The West Wing where the White House staff were having to evaluate which alternative energy was best. The ideas was "wow, this is so hard, and gov't officials who are not scientists have to listen to scientists and pick where our energy comes from." The show is right that that would be nearly impossible, but the solution is easy. If you somehow make people pay for the costs on the environment of the CO2 they emit, the market will find the right solution.

I have not gone to the paper but the summary of it is deeply flawed.

Yes biofuels increase CO2 emissions compared with fossil fuels.
The planet is at about 400 parts per million at the moment, humans exhale 40,000 ppm, commercial greenhouses use 1500ppm,
at 150ppm all plant life dies and all animal will follow.
Should these madcap carbon-capture schemes, as favorably referred to by some on this site, become successful all life on planet earth is threatened.

CO2 is beneficial not harmful, it has no effect on atmospheric temperature. Of CO2 in the atmosphere about three percent is from human activities. Its residence time in the atmosphere is 10 years (all studies have a range from 5 to 18 years except the UN IPCC which without quoting observations or sources gives 100 years).

There you go..another example of the system totally failing when you let government make decisions.

Not even mentioning the poor allocation of resources and government looting that is preventing real solutions from being created, tested, and implemented (assuming that there is a problem to be solved at all.)
GET OUT OF THE WAY! Let the free market work!