Two studies posted last week on “ScienceExpress” -- an advance web version of Science Magazine -- and widely reported in the press, raise important issues but often read like conclusions looking for an underlying rationale. These two studies fundamentally misunderstand the local forces behind land use change issues and make no provision for mitigating impacts such as the slowdown in urbanization that a vibrant agricultural economy would bring. Further, these two studies somewhat conflict with one another, with one supporting cellulosic ethanol and the other one opposing it, except if produced from waste.