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.