sure! we need biofuels to get independent from oil for many reasons apart from CO2.

Answer: I believe this is up to the local markets to decide and independent from soviet style worldwide planning that would INCREASE such markets.

Sugar cane in Brazil is pretty competitive if used for the local markets and only because it is not produced in a sustainable way and at the expense of the rain forest.

so it IS competetive? that is exactly what i said! the market does NOT care about the environment! that is exactly the problem i was talking about!
So we agree with each other that it is competitive only if it does not care about laborer rights and the environment.

No, politics is making the choices, not the market. If it were for the market, the U.S. and the EU would immediately stop subsidized biofuel production.

you are mixing up the past and the future! politicians made the choice to subsidies biofules in the past. in the future, with current oil prices, the MARKET will increase biofuel production!

So politicians started to create the market by pushing the oil prizes. The same politicians now blame the market. Goethe: Der Zauberlehrling - German/English
… Herr, die Not ist groß! I have need of Thee! Die ich rief, die Geister,,
from the spirits that I called. werd’ ich nun nicht los. Sir, deliver me! …

That’s nothing new. That’s how politics works. The bogus claim of carbon neutral fuels helps nobody but the farmers and producers of biofuel.

you are placing the blame on the wrong groups!
Groups? I was talking about WHAT myth started it. Again, I am happy it is even in your link: “The biofuels craze was founded on the theory that plant-based fuels are carbon-neutral,

another article from october 07 says:

EU says biofuel subsidies hit maximum, questions if they are still needed

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/17/business/EU-FIN-EU-Biofuel-Subsidies.php

Sod, “if they are still needed”, refers to the already overshot targets of 2 million hectares. They did not remove those targets at all. So, you need to be stubborn with soviet style world governnance if you still want to artificially increase biofuel production. The market in Brazil wants it. Let them have it, but the E.U. is right not to import it. STOP BURNING FOOD! Rather let the land rest.

Really? So what were the alternatives they suggested?
The use of biofuels can be considered sustainable only if fuels are produced in a sustainable way and if they are used as efficiently as
possible. The use of biofuels should therefore only be supported as part of a wider energy policy to reduce energy demand dramatically. This includes, for the transport sector, extensive improvements in vehicle fuel-efficiency, a shift of the transport of goods from road to rail and changes in mobility
related behaviour patterns. Also, the use of biofuels in the transport sector must not prejudice the more efficient utilisation of
biomass and biofuels for CHP, heating & cooling and electricity production.
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/consultation/doc/2007_06_04_biofuels/non_og/greenpeace_en.pdf

I guess not, although I believe there is a flaw in your question: What does “less labor intensive” mean? As far as I know, the countries in need of food have very labor intensive production methodologies, but the labor is “cheap”. That’s the difference. That’s why palm oil and sugar cane are cheap.
my suggestion is simple:
reduce food exports from the first world to the third. our subsidized food is causing problems there. instead use farm land here, to produce biofuels in a way that does as little damage to the environment has a small CO2 output. help the third world to produce food and only buy biofuels from them, that where produced in a useful way. But all of this is getting harder and harde, because at current oil price, biofuel is pretty compettetive….so the market will make the choices, not “environmental organisations”

ANSWER: You still want to expand biofuel production? Sugar cane in Brazil is pretty competitive if used for the local markets and only because it is not produced in a sustainable way and at the expense of the rain forest. No, politics is making the choices, not the market. If it were for the market, the U.S. and the EU would immediately stop subsidized biofuel production. They wouldn’t have started at first place. More than 95% of biofuel used in first world countries is also produced here. Your suggestion is simple but the world is not and people will go hungry even more. Stop biofuel from wheat, maize, sugar beet and rapeseed oil and don’t import biofuels. See next post

at current oil price, biofuel is pretty compettetive….

these are the major errors in your analysis:

1. starting from the point that biofuels are bad, constructing your argument around it.
Not really. Organic fuels are not bad per se. Besides, we have very effective heating systems in Switzerland from the burning of waste.

2. blaming “green ideas” mainly for the push towards biofuels. (farmers? prices?)
Where did I do this?. I thought I put the blame at where it all started: The carbon neutral myth.

3. ignoring the rather long lasting critisism of environmental organisations of the WAY in which biofuels are produced.
Really? So what were the alternatives they suggested?

4. assuming that the BETTER technologies come from nowhere, and do not require the current biofuels as a middle step.
“the way biofuels are produced - no - the current biofuels as a middle step - yes??

5. another point of thought:
does it make sense that western farmers produce (labor intensive) and heavily subsidiesed food, while the countries in need of food produce (less labor intensive) oil and gas for the western world?
I guess not, although I believe there is a flaw in your question: What does “less labor intensive” mean? As far as I know, the countries in need of food have very labor intensive production methodologies, but the labor is “cheap”. That’s the difference. That’s why palm oil and sugar cane are cheap.