Ecologically sound? Sure, and while we’re dreaming I’d like a pony (pt 2)
If you had a fuel source that caused 33 tons of co2 emissions per ton, you'd think it wasn't particularly good for the environment, particularly when a commonly used alternative causes 3.3 tons of co2 emissions per ton. But, no, the commonly used alternative is petroleum, and the not particularly good for the environment one is biodiesel, so all the so-called carbon-sensitive governments are crawling over each other to promote the super-polluting "natural" choice.
Destroying tropical habitat? Oh, that's just a bonus, because thanks to the wonders of the free market it just doesn't count if the co2 fountain is in a third world country. And all those starving peasants? Yup, you guessed it; third world country, so it doesn't count.
It may count if this extra co2 can cause the apocolyptic holy grail (runaway global warming, death of 90% of the species on this planet, and, possibly, some intelligent species evolving a hundred million years down the line,) but that's not much of a sense of accomplishment for people like me who would like to see the family DNA survive without such a ridiculous future.
But, hey, I don't drive a fucking hummer, so I don't count. After all, it's selfish to want humanity to survive if it means that people in the so-called "first world" have to tweak their lifestyles to be more efficient.
(fun facts about biofuels courtesy of George Monbiot)