Is Friedman naive about ethanol?

That's the question that AutoblogGreen is asking this morning, regarding an article written by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. The article, according to AutoblogGreen, is Mr. Friedman's approval of ethanol as a primary fuel source based on his recent visit to Brazil, which is the world's leader of bio-fuels (Although Brazil only consumers a tiny fraction of fuel compared to the U.S.).

While I believe that cellulosic ethanol is an interesting product, I also have many questions in addition to those posed by AutoblogGreen. For example, how many more tons of pesticides and fertilizers will be required for a significant increase in ethanol production? Is it smart to use so much clean water - possibly America's most important resource - for ethanol production? Even if it is, is our groundwater in danger of chemical contamination because of runoff?

Recently, I read an article, though I can't source it, that claimed that ethanol production is far more profitable than using the same sources for food. Will that lead to higher food prices, or even MORE subsidies to farmers to produce food INSTEAD of ethanol?

If America is tired of Big Oil companies, do Americans really believe that big agriculture and chemical companies won't take over the ethanol industry and act just as crudely as big oil?

I could go on, but I won't.

I think cellulosic ethanol is interesting, but I think there are still MANY questions. More important, I worry that automakers will focus less on new fuel efficient technologies and vehicle designs. Too often is seems Detroit would rather push the problem of foreign oil dependency, pollution, etc. to anyone else, rather than take any responsibility.