[Ed Bighi]

Red-beard, perhaps using both is a better solution. After all, why does one fuel have to be the answer. Right now we already use two in the form of diesel and gasoline. But really, the argument that there isn't enough land to support it pales in comparison to Dr Borlaug's views of this particular century and wheat needs. Seems to me that fuel is the least of our worries when compared to food and water. Read about what he says here (as written in the link I pasted above):


"Africa, the former Soviet republics, and the cerrado are the last frontiers. After they are in use, the world will have no additional sizable blocks of arable land left to put into production, unless you are willing to level whole forests, which you should not do.

Future food-production increases will have to come from higher yields. And though I have no doubt yields will keep going up, whether they can go up enough to feed the population monster is another matter. Unless progress with agricultural yields remains very strong, the next century will experience sheer human misery that, on a numerical scale, will exceed the worst of everything that has come before."


I don't think anybody on this board has the clout to argue with his opinion on this matter. Whichever way you look at it, food or fuel, this is going to be one tough century. Keep in mind the low percentage of Chinese or Indians who own cars today. Wait until more of them start driving and consuming like us. The way I see it, our future generations will have better toys to play with. Or maybe not (no internal combustion). Everything else like quality of life or room to breathe will be worse. Who knows, maybe it's my reason number thirty something for not having any kids.