Caring about the earth can certainly be a troubling business, as Sir Richard Branson discovered recently.

No sooner had the mighty flying Virgin leader launched a project that would at least in part propel aircraft by biofuels - a better way of reducing greenhouse gases - the next thing he knows, he's being accused by the green lobby of increasing world hunger.

Huh?

In a quandry that is well-explained by this NYTimes.com article, the arguments for biofuels over oil have recently come under intense fire from the green lobby.

Why? Because the increasingly valuable palm oil has been replacing food crops like rice and wheat in the developing world, and used as an excuse for forest clearance. The results? Rising food prices.

But hold on now. Before we all go out and love petrol again, surely there is a way to address the food shortages, without stopping investment into alternative fuels. For many of the more extreme folk in the green lobby, who take a "reduce consumption or bust" mentality, air travel is a luxury that only the rich can afford - and we'd all be better off without it.

But talk about unintended consequences, people. If air travel was ground to a halt, so would industries that put food on tables. Trade itself would be crippled. Or would we all just be sent to the farms instead? I seem to remember that somebody in Cambodia had an idea like that, and heck, it really didn't work so well.

Less needless travel? Definitely. More awareness? Absolutely. But before we keep training our slingshots on the sky at each new target, let's look at trying a workable alternative plan. Something macro, that includes all industries.

Sir Richard Branson is intent on pursuing alternative fuels - surely we all should too. But in the meantime, perhaps instead of just planting trees to offset our guilt, maybe we should all go and plant a rice padi too.