Remarkable tennis today. Much more interesting than the men's tennis during the Sampras years. Today's match will be long-remembered. The Spanish are celebrating tonight, for sure. But to get to my main point -

Besides possibly helping to provide a minor degree of economic independence from the big oil nations, is there any logic behind biofuel?

This question came up in conversation last night, when it was mentioned that the demand for biofuel may be driving up the cost of food, and even causing third-world starvation.

One person mentioned the notion that biofuels are somehow greener and less polluting because they come from plants. Of course, the current geological consensus is that oil comes from plants too, but that's another topic.

How much do biofuels pollute? I took a quick unscientific glance around the 'nets during the rain delay:

Biofuels may produce more greenhouse gases than oil

Biodiesel: How much pollution does it really create?

Biofuel backlash: High prices, pollution worries hit consumers

Biofuel Crops Increase Carbon Emissions

and from Time Magazine, The Trouble with Biofuels:

According to researchers at Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy, almost all the biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels, if the full environmental cost of producing them is factored in.

I think the message is that, even if you consider CO2 a "pollutant" (which I do not), and even if you consider global warming a planetary crisis (which I do not), the only convincing rationale for subsidizing biofuels with our taxes and with our higher food prices (a hidden tax) is a geopolitical one.