[h0l0cube]

Solar and wind aren't exactly 'perfect' either.

As I've stated elsewhere, the main problem is the supply constraint, and it's always a trade-off with food production. It means E85 is still expensive, and hasn't shown promise to scale to become cheaper. And the only way it can scale is to use more land, which must come from somewhere. Even if you don't care for the loss of biodiversity, the destruction of carbon sinks may nullify the purported carbon reduction of switching fuels.

Hybrid vehicles with regenerative braking don't require infrastructure changes and reduce carbon output, all while the consumer spends less on fuel.

[cutemonster]

What if more people became vegetarians -- then the fields nowadays being used to grow soy beans for hamburger cows could instead grow biodfuel plants

[h0l0cube]

I'm not against a reduction in livestock. It solves a bunch of ethical problems. I think if fast food restaurants alone slowly transition to higher percentage of plant based proteins in patties, it would have a outsize impact compared to grass-roots abstinence. But why not both, I suppose?

I'm a huge fan of forests, wetlands, bushlands, heathlands, prairies, and other wild landscapes. If land use in agriculture dropped, my preference would be to see that land go back to the trees, wild-flowers, and the many creatures that live with them.