Also the uncertainty associated with the estimates of CO2 reductions is vast.. Check the attachments. We may or may not get huge reductions by swtiching to biofuels at the risk of food security and biodiversity loss, but how much is still a question. Only certain move for reduction is reducing the demand. Sarath <div>On 1/31/07, Lee Schipper <<a href="mailto:SCHIPPER@wri.org">SCHIPPER@wri.org</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> This should be an important wake up to those whose hopes for biofuels are driving by subsidies and mandates, not a real concern for climate change. If biofuels are to contribute meaningfully to solving oil security and CO2 problems, the first job is to cut the consumption of petroleum products down to size where the biofuels contribution can be meaningful without destroying part of the planet in its own way. In short, the first step is taxing fossil fuels with a tax we believe represents the threats and damages of climate change, and THEN seeing what  kinds of low-carbon options appear. Simply promoting biofuels, for example, doesn't fill buses, which would on its own reduce GHG emissions. Promoting biofuels doesn't promote the use of smaller and/or more efficient cars, and some of the US schemes, like credits for selling flex-fuel cars that allow manufacturers to sell gas guzzlers at less penalty than otherwise, may even increase overall oil use and GHG emissions. There is no free lunch, not even one grown in your back yard! </blockquote></div>