I believe you missed key points, and while I don't disagree with the intent, there's at least one part that I specifically addressed in my earlier linking...
Ethenol/Biodiesal both create more land pollution from the farming, require the use of arable land that is better used for food production and the process of making these fuels take a great deal of water and energy. In other words it could be worst overall than petroleum causing significant food access problems. Haiti is already feeling this and are not the only ones.
Inaccurate, and a false dichotomy - there is plenty of arable land we LITERALLY pay people not to grow anything on, that could be used for cellulosic ethanol; using switchgrass, which grows as a weed
in most places, results in areas already plagued with poor soil retention having a rootsystem in place to prevent the continuing damage that other crops would bring, in addition to producing a recycleable byproduct that can in turn be used to further extract biodiesel WITHOUT IMPACTING EXISTING FARMLAND, and more to the point produces THREE TIMES the energy that is consumed in production, in part because it can be created from the vast majority of the organic plant-matter waste we already create without having to go harvesting a plant specifically for it. The reason why you see the hype surrounding corn-based ethanol is because of, simply put, Con-Agra's huge involvement in the corn market, for one, and the fact that they peddled their influence so that corn was used as the default crop-stock used for ethanol experimentation, due to the fact that sugar production is comparatively curtailed in the US, and heavens forbid anyone try to disrupt Con-Agra's hold on the agriculture industry. Read my link from earlier, and it spells this fact out, particularly since (ligno-)cellulosic ethanol can be carbon neutral to produce. I'll even save you the click and reproduce it (in part) here.
"One of the major reasons for increasing the use of biofuels is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In respect to gasoline, ethanol burns cleaner with a greater efficiency, thus putting less carbon dioxide and overall pollution in the air. Additionally, only low levels of smog are produced from combustion. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, ethanol from cellulose reduces green house gas emission by 90 percent, when compared to gasoline and in comparison to corn-based ethanol which decreases emissions by 10 to 20 percent. Carbon dioxide gas emissions are shown to be 85% lower than those from gasoline. Cellulosic ethanol contributes little to the greenhouse effect and has a five times better net energy balance than corn-based. When used as a fuel, cellulosic ethanol releases less sulfur, carbon monoxide, particulates, and greenhouse gases. Cellulosic ethanol should earn producers carbon reduction credits, higher than those given to producers who grow corn for ethanol, which is about 3 to 20 cents per gallon.
It takes 1.2 gallons of fossil fuel to produce 1 gallon of ethanol from corn. This total includes the use of fossil fuels used for fertilizer, tractor fuel, ethanol plant operation, etc. Research has shown that 1 gallon of fossil fuel can produce over 5 gallons of ethanol from prairie grasses, according to Terry Riley, President of Policy at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. The United States Department of Energy concludes that corn-based ethanol provides 26 percent more energy than it requires for production, while cellulosic ethanol provides 80 percent more energy. Cellulosic ethanol yields 80 percent more energy than is required to grow and convert it. The process of turning corn into ethanol requires about 1,700 gallons of water for every 1 gallon of ethanol produced. Additionally, each gallon of ethanol leaves behind 12 gallons of waste that must be disposed. Grain ethanol uses only the edible portion of the plant. Expansion of corn acres for the production of ethanol poses threats to biodiversity. Corn lacks a strong root system, therefore, when produced, it causes soil erosion. This has a direct effect on soil particles, along with excess fertilizers and other chemicals, washing into local waterways, damaging water quality and harming aquatic life. Planting riparian areas can serve as a buffer to waterways, and decrease runoff."
More when I get home; it's the end of shift, and I'm ready to go.