But this is a paper, prepared for the World Wildlife Fund, which should be read for other reasons as well.  First of all it shows that sugar cane cultivation can (but doesn't necessarily have to) impact negatively in ecologically varying areas.  In fact rain forest areas seem only marginally under threat from sugar cane. (We should perhaps spend a little more time considering the impact of mining other low entropy resources, such as old growth woods from North American rain forests.)

One key point made in this paper relates to the impact of subsidized European and U.S. sugar production (mostly from beets) on sugar cane cultivation practices in poor countries.

Of particular value in the paper is the contention that Best Management Practices can mitigate, if not entirely overcome, negative environmental and social impacts of sugar cane cultivation.

This is of course what Milton Maciel has been telling us for years.  

Now, I don't know if Robert was referring to posts I have on occasion made when he wrote:

"One area that did not fare as well as sugarcane ethanol advocates have often advertised is on the issue of soil erosion. I have been told a number of times that there is no erosion from sugarcane production, or that production is managed such that the topsoil actually increases over time."

Milton Maciel has made numerous posts on Yahoo Groups - Energy Resources that organic sugarcane cultivation, and we of course assume best mangagement practices, does improve the topsoil over time.  Is he wrong?

I guess once a European or North American agency verifies the evidence then we will have "precisely the kind of study that has been needed to verify that claims ... are on sound scientific footing".  After all, what the hell is Brazilean research worth anyway?