The article explains that there is debate over DeCicco's research, but the point that DeCicco is making and is clearly explained in the article is that despite

The article explains that there is debate over DeCicco's research, but the point that DeCicco is making and is clearly explained in the article is that despite the fact that burning biofuels simply returns CO2 back to the atmosphere that was extracted by the growing corn in the first place is CO2 neutral, there is a significant cost in CO2 emissions in farming, transporting and processing the corn into fuel. It it the total lifecycle of biofuel that DeCicco is studying, and the real debate is if these lifecycle costs exceed the total costs (in emissions) of using gasoline in cars. DeCicco's results seem at first to be counter-intuitive, but my understanding is that it is an energy intensive process to turn corn into fuel. In any case, the debate suggests that the benefit of the ethanol programs is at the least questionable and not going to solve our environmental issues. We need to look somewhere else. I don't have a lot of hope that US ethanol policy will every be sensible as long as Presidential primary (caucuses) start in Iowa. Every candidate has to promise to keep the program going which keeps Iowa's economy going no matter what science tell us.