Interesting approach (do all ou GCC disciples read the same manual for attacking GCC theory opponents?). The editorial has a limited space, so he can't present many facts from the report, and he certainly doesn't have the space to substantiate and cross reference every statement he makes--but the editor does give you a place to look, and yet you still tell him he is wrong. You still haven't read the report, yet you cut down the report by telling us that there is a website out there somewhere that "...says it is bogue...." ("bogus" of course is misspelled, everyone has typos now and again), and fail to identify the actual website so we can go there ourselves and evaluate the site's information for rationality and accuracy. The editor has presented some facts, you however have presented nothing except for attacks. The missing dollars are in the report, read it!

I have no idea whether the methods and the data in this report are accurate; my mind is open enough to consider the possibility at least that any rush to mitigate humans' damage to the environment must be tempered with some reasonable discussion regarding the possible negative side effects associated with those rushed actions. For instance, we obviously spent about 2 seconds in our rush to dump more ethanol into our gasoline, because now it is becoming clear that the negative side effects are many and can cause more harm than good: corn needs a lot of water, which drains our depleted aquifers probably more than they can take; corn needs  a lot of fertilizer, which can easily end up in our rivers and contribute more to the expanding dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where the Mississippi dumps into the Gulf; growing corn for fuel means it won't be available for livestock feed, leading to higher corn costs, leading to higher livestock costs, leading to higher human food costs. The point is not to argue the bad or the good of corn-based ethanol; the point is that all these actions have positive and negative effects, and if we rush out to reduce our carbon output without first accepting the consequences of those actions, then we could be worse off than we are now.

 If the cited report is correct, and we use more energy over the life cycle of the Prius than the SUV uses, then apparently switching to the Prius will be more damaging to our energy supply than the SUV.

 Capitalism sucks; except for all OTHER economic systems, which suck more.