Here's a perverse idea:

As we know, there is good evidence that the energetic gain on biofuels from food crops is rather crappy. And they affect world food supply.

But maybe there is a silver lining. i.e. The biofuels effort is bringing closer to the present the day of reckoning, but at the same time supplying a cushion. The high prices send a signal around the world and presumably ring everybody's bell. Obviously, the 'cushion' is logistically not nearly as good as grain supplies for a number of reasons. But it would seem not completely crazy to think that biofuel production could fairly rapidly cease without massive economic damage because it doesn't contribute that much anyway.

These price signals are very important. If the world is near the brink, it's better it knows before the real brink appears.

It's not something the Oil Drum would necessarily like to crow to the media about, but I think it likely that the site did the world a huge favour in contributing to the rise in distant future oil contracts. If hedge funds made money on Stuart's advice research then there's a good chance the price was affected.

Greenspan who has always watched distant future oil very closely recently said in the WSJ that "oil is going to peak earlier and lower than previously expected".

Shows how uncovering the facts can give you an audience with the powerful (indirectly). Perhaps Stuart rang Greenspan's bell.

I guess another way to present this admittedly bizarre idea is say maybe it would be good if the world had a large food cushion but that it was hard to access. Sorry for the flippant analogy but it could be sort of like knowing you can always get money from Dad but at the cost of a 3 hour lecture and being reminded about it for the rest of your life.

Speaking of bio-fuels and peak oil... If one believes in man-made global warming then bio-fuels (CO2 Absorbing) are a really good idea and CTL and GTL (Lots of CO2) are really awful ideas. If one believes in peak oil and not man-made global warming then bio-fuels are a bad idea (Bad EROEI, Misuse of arable land and limited fertilizer) and CTL and GTL are good ideas (Scalable, Good EROEI, Produces Fertilizer). If one believes in both then negative EROEI bio-fuels are a bad idea and one's opinion of CTL/GTL really depends on whether your more afraid of peak oil or global warming.