This is a long, but really good article IMHO.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...story?id=51929
If you don't have 10 or 15 minutes to read it all, here are some points:

-Employing the land to soak up atmospheric carbon increasingly appears central to averting global climate meltdown, and may very well depend on the skill of farmers and foresters in growing soil carbon.

-Studies highlight the need to direct biofuels growth in sustainable directions, using feedstocks that minimize competition for prime croplands.

-Biofuels done unsustainably could make the climate problem worse, while biofuels done sustainably could play a leading role in solving the carbon challenge.

-The choice is not between biofuels or not, but between sustainable and unsustainable biofuels.

-Growing populations that are becoming more affluent, especially in Asia, are well capable of driving up [food & fuel] prices on their own and are doing so. Land conversions as a result of corn ethanol demand could well take place even if corn ethanol was taken out of the picture. The timing might be a few years different, but the carbon releases would be the same, and without any balancing effect of biofuels displacing petroleum fuels.

-The great bulk of land conversions taking place today are for traditional needs of food, feed and fiber.

-Soybean conversions in Brazil are almost entirely driven by food demands.

-Supply constraints could push the price of oil to $150 a barrel by 2010. ( $112 today )
-These prices will drive demand for all sorts of alternatives including biofuels, and that will add to feedstock demand.

-With oil at $100 a barrel, distillers can pay more than $7 a bushel for corn and still break even. If oil climbs to $140, distillers can pay $10 a bushel.

-Economist John Urbanchuk notes that food prices are escalating generally rather than just in areas affected by increased corn costs, (due mostly to the price of oil).

-NASA Researcher James Hansen says humanity must now actively seek to soak CO2 out of the air. He points to improved farming and forestry practices as the most economical and feasible pathway to achieve this.
-Synergies between growing biofuels and biocarbon [sinks] could create multiple revenue streams that promote both.

-"Carbon-negative biofuels" - deeply rooted plants lock up more carbon in soils than is released in burning the fuels.

-Drawing new attention is combined production of bioenergy and charcoal, with charcoal returned to the soil. Charcoal buried in soils would retain at least half its carbon after 1,000 years.

-Six large-scale pilot cellulosic plants will be operating within several years. These plants will all employ waste streams, including municipal waste, wood waste and farm residues.

-The people who work the land might well save the world by useing the soil to meet our diverse needs for food, fuel, feed, fiber and carbon storage.

When you consider the volume, the huge mass of coal and oil that has already been burned, you begin to think about humans making future coal and oil beds . . . as a matter of survival. Perhaps the dinosaurs will win.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

Again I say.... we need not do anything, if we are OK with the planet getting warmer. Dinosaurs were OK with the planet being warmer. It was the cold that killed them off. Most scientists agree that warmer, wetter climates lead to greater biodiversity.
We only need all this carbon sink this and CO2 reduction that, if we wish to keep the planet.... well... cool.

I just watched a documentary ( now available on video ) called "In the Shadow of the Moon" and I highly recommend it. It has nothing to do with GW or this thread, except for one sentence that really struck me. One of the Apollo astronauts said something like:

"After visiting another world and looking at what else is out there, you realize we truly are living in a garden of Eden."

Btw, "win" what?

I have heard the oil companies are funding the fight against Bio Fuel, I have no way of knowing and given the choice of believing big oil or the bio fuel group, well that is a toss up, they all have too much to gain.

What I do know is I am using E-85 in my truck & driving a Hybrid, I drive both only when necessary, the truck is being driven about 2,000 miles a year, the car is @ about 7,000....I used to drive 20,000+ a year for both vehicles...I moved much closer to work & town.

I have gone from using about 800 gallons of gas a year to about 150 caused by driving less all-together, my truck hardly at all & when I do it is running only 15% gas.

I am not sure that the e-85 pays for itself as it 14% less than gas here (2.99 vs 3.46)but my truck is seeing about a 18% drop in mileage but, saving money is not my main goal.

Using less oil is

Big oil companies are buying grain futures and then selling them without ever seeing a kernal. This jacks up the price of corn.

Does big oil have ulterior motives buy corn futures?
You be the judge.

In recent news ( 4-14-08 )

clip
"The Montana Farm Bureau Federation has lashed out at media reports linking the rise in food prices to ethanol. MFBF President Dave McClure told Western Farm Stockman that "less than 10% of the U.S. corn crop is used for corn-based foods consumed by humans, such as corn meal, cornstarch and breakfast cereals," and that grains account for 2 percent of the cost of corn flakes and 16 cents of the cost of a loaf of bread. Runaway energy prices, he said, are the culprit."