Someone has ask me to respond to NRDC's Luke Tonachel response to my response. I can't do it on his blog because he closed his comment section.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ltonachel/new_study_clean_fuels_are_good.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+switchboard_all+%28Switchboard%3A+Blogs+from+NRDC%27s+Environmental+Experts%29

 

Mr. Tonachel writes, "non-food biomass is available in the region for fuel production" Of course, there is non-food biomass pretty much everywhere but no one has been able to turn it into commercially viable fuel in spite of years of investing lots of tax dollars into creating cellulosic ethanol. Several cellulosic plants have gone bankrupt, millions and millions of taxpayers dollars have been wasted, and still no cellulosic ethanol.

 

Luke Tonachel continues "You only have to search NRDC’s blogs for “ethanol” to see that we share your concern about corn ethanol" Again, of course, I know that NRDC shares my concern about corn ethanol. I have been advocating against corn ethanol for a long time. But I also know that NRDC has been advocating for celluloslic ethanol for a long time since, at least 2004 or earlier, correct? (http://www.e2.org/ext/doc/SecuringAmerica.pdf%20)It  It is now 2011, there is no celluslosic ethanol, and meanwhile, a lot of corn ethanol has been used and wrecked havoc on the environment and food security. So maybe putting in place another mandate for a non-existent clean fuel  and advocating (as you have) 

that "biofuel manufacturing facilities need to be built" is not a good idea. How many more abandoned industrial sites (often on what was once farmland) do we need?