The folks over at Foreign Policy are taking a hard look at the US's current biofuels policy. First it was this piece characterizing corn ethanol's patrons in Congress as the "Corn Dogs." Now Micheal Grunwawld, as part of a broader overview called Seven Myths About Alternative Energy, singles out biofuels in two of the myths.

Myth #2 - "Renewable Fuels Are the Cure for Our Addiction to Oil."

Researchers used to agree that farm-grown fuels would cut emissions because they all made a shockingly basic error. They gave fuel crops credit for soaking up carbon while growing, but it never occurred to them that fuel crops might displace vegetation that soaked up even more carbon. It was as if they assumed that biofuels would only be grown in parking lots.

Myth #3 - "If Today's Biofuels Aren't the Answer, Tomorrow's Biofuels Will Be."

The latest U.S. rules, while continuing lavish support for corn ethanol, include enormous new mandates to jump-start "second-generation" biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol derived from switchgrass. In theory, they would be less destructive than corn ethanol, which relies on tractors, petroleum-based fertilizers, and distilleries that emit way too much carbon. Even first-generation ethanol derived from sugar cane -- which already provides half of Brazil's transportation fuel -- is considerably greener than corn ethanol. But recent studies suggest that any biofuels requiring good agricultural land would still be worse than gasoline for global warming. Less of a disaster than corn ethanol is still a disaster.

But for today, farmland happens to be very good at producing the food we need to feed us and storing the carbon we need to save us, and not so good at generating fuel.