“..but for the developing world’s rural poor (about 67 percent of those who live on less than a dollar a day), food price increases can boost incomes as subsistence farms become more economic.”

Surely he can’t believe this – why not just tax all food until the “subsistance farmer” makes enough money! The reality is that the “subsistance farmer” has been put into poverty by not being able to compete on cost.

“Meanwhile, cellulosic ethanol production can reduce carbon emissions 75 percent while producing ethanol at a lower cost than corn ethanol and gasoline.”

I assume this conveniently forgets the “in ten years time” of a previous paragraph, but even then its just grabbing a number that suits and argument – the figures that exisit are very different”

“..biodiesel from food oils such as soybean or palm oil has traditionally created environmental negatives. But corn ethanol has been a stepping stone to cellulosic ethanol, a preferred alternative that is likely to achieve unsubsidized market competitiveness with oil within a few years.”

There is no disagreement that ethanol is more environmentally negative than biodiesel and if we use this weird argument linking corn ethanol to cellulosic exactly the same link can be made to algal biodiesel to justify soya biodiesel