As he should. Rather than a knee-jerk positive reaction to biofuels, I think we should step back and look at the entire, cradle to cradle impact of what we're proposing. As Michael Pollan notes in "The Omnivore's Dilemma", it's likely that corn-based ethanol is actually more damaging to the environment than gasoline, because of how many side effects are involved in producing and processing industrial corn.

We're seeing rainforest slashed and burned ever faster to make oil crops. Fun while it lasts, I guess, but it's sad to see the environmentalists jump onboard.

YEAH!

Mass production of corn for fuel invites the GMO demon in. Monsanto sells Round-up Ready corn seed to Mexico (and everyone else) for less than it costs to grow it. But due to the fact that so many farmers cannot afford Round-up, there isn't any point in buying it, so the bio-diversity has survived (so far). But if major industry creeps in to grow corn for fuel, you can bet it won't be organic.

I am a fan of bio-diesel, but food comes first. I'd rather walk to the store to buy organic corn than drive to the store to buy genetically engineered corn.

I think he did the right thing. We need to promote ethanol production from waste products and corn stover etc. This would limit the effects on food prices and would be taking care of a waste manamgement and environmental dilemma at the same time. Growing corn and sugarcane soleley for fuel is idiotic in the long term. It is notrthe answer. A diverse energy portfolio is the healthiest environmentally and economically. Look at everything in nature from reproduction to ecology,systems with diversity are the healthiest over long periods. The same can be said when ananlyzing a good financial stock portfolio!

At first I was disappointed, but now I believe he made the right decision also. Its too easy to have that automatic positive reaction to any trendy bio-fuel topic. I just hope that they (Mexico) are actively seeking other alternatives for bio-fuel than corn and sugarcane. I'd be more interested in the seaweed approach mentioned.. especially since land could easily become overworked in the future if things keep on growing.. the seas could provide more area to work with.

We do not want Latin America to become the Persian Gulf of Biofuels".

The consequences of growing biofuel for export to the wealthy countries so that they may maintain their energy intensive lifestyles, could be severe and may exacerbate the problems of food security, social inequality, poverty, climate change and environmental degradation in Latin America. We do not want Latin America to become the Persian Gulf of Biofuels.

While local production on a small scale of biofuels from non-edible feedstock in Latin America can contribute to local energy availability, the large scale production of biofuels that international markets require, can completely destroy the opportunities for sustainable production in rural communities where people need to improve their livelihoods while at the same time contributing to the efforts to combat climate change.

Latin American countries could benefit from using the biofuels they produce locally on small scale without destroying the ecosystems, by means of improved biofuel regulatory systems to protect communities and ecosystems from the predatory and profit-driven multinational companies that are likely to invade new business opportunities in the biofuel industry.

Biofuels from non-edible feedstock produced locally on a small scale can be used among producers in rural communities (agriculture, fisheries, livestock, etc.) as fuel for tractors, agricultural machinery, electricity generation, etc. The biomass to obtain biofuels should be produced in lands no adequate for food crops.

Funny: to produce bio-fuel one must have enough appropriate plants for. To harvest plants one should have enough land-fields available for. To have land-fields one should transform natural land available (forests predominantly) into areas cultivated-not talking of simply decreasing food crop production to produce more economically-beneficial bio-fuel produce.

So, if all these energy used to had integrated, has the outcome been really sustainable?

Like it or hate it, but Mexican president, probably, has some point for a national concern.

Funny: to produce bio-fuel one must have enough appropriate plants for. To harvest plants one should have enough land-fields available for. To have land-fields one should transform natural land available (forests predominantly) into areas cultivated-not talking of simply decreasing food crop production to produce more economically-beneficial bio-fuel produce.

So, if all this energy used to had integrated, has the outcome been really sustainable?

Like it or hate it, but a Mexican president has, probably, some point for a national concern.