The stress between food and ethanol fuel is described and some of the major problems with ethanol are laid out. The political dimensions of agri-business lobbying are omitted. The alternatives of solar, wind, geothermal, and conservation are left outside the scope. Global warming further limiting the production of either food nor fuel is not addressed. A good article for what it does address.

The financial viability of ethanol has been questioned by leading economists and scientists for decades - food vs fuel being a logical issue. This editorial points to the problem but leaves it to the reader to judge whether or not the FT has the knowledge required to opine.

Since the Financial Times is a British newspaper, it might be excused, although its editors should know better and should say so, for failing to emphasize the influence of American corporations (actually, one American corporation) in controlling the corn/fuel situaution in the USA. While the article presents sound arguments, which, on their merits alone are quite convincing, it ignores the primary factor with regard to the view that the USA and the Bush administration takes toward to the corn/fuel issue. The entire corn market in the USA, along with much of North American agriculture is virtually totally controlled by one enormous corporation: Archer Daniels Midland. The use of corn for producing massive amounts of ethanol for ... More »

For a publication Named Financial Times, to use P.C buzzwords when financial comparisons are more effective for the same argument ... (Noting that energy use to make Ethanol comes from oil or coal should have simply noted that it negated much, if not most or even all, of the energy production benefits)( the two most cited studies take opposing viewpoints, and both are flawed) The whole premise should have been stated in terms of energy cost (in both joules and $) to yields. It is what I would expect from a financial paper, but as that was not the viewpoint, it was not the story angle. The facts got there, but pretty weak as an argument instead of moderately solid as it could have been.

A pretty good article that talks about an important issue that the US media has largely ignored. The enormous growth and support for corn-based ethanol derives from the fact that well over a third of the US Senate comes from agricultural producing states, and they in turn derive substantial support from the principal corporate beneficiary of government policies favoring ethanol. More stories like this one and perhaps ethanol would be seen to have more downside to it than alternatives, including oil.