or they become just another money sink. For example, a lot of attention has been paid to alternative fuels like ethanol. However, even the Sierra Club questions the widespread use of ethanol because it may actually increase pollution. The linked article notes:

"Most environmental groups do not promote ethanol as a strategy for reducing smog. In particular, the Sierra Club and Clean Air Trust have voiced concerns that ethanol may actually lead to an increase in smog-forming pollutants. A Natural Resources Defense Council representative has gone on record saying that the oxygenate requirement for reformulated gas is "not a clean air program anymore," but an agricultural subsidy program."

Here's some more info on ethanol from Ned Ford, the Vice Chair of the Sierra Club's National Energy Committee. As he notes:

"The environmental community is suspicious of ethanol as an alternative fuel on the grounds that ethanol from corn using current agricultural practices requires such an enormous amount of fossil fuel energy and fertilizer made from fossil fuel that it doesn't really amount to a sustainable fuel. I do not feel confident of the various quantifications I've seen of the energy requirement for ethanol, but am quite sure that this is an open discussion."

Similar economic arguments must be examined for other proposed alternative energy sources, such as hydrogen. Without serious economic scrutiny, these programs become just more in the ever expanding list of government boondoggles.