Did you ever wonder where that term came from and how it came to mean a phony miracle cure? Snake fat was considered a remedy for various ailments by some Native American tribes. Enterprising and often itinerant peddlers in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, especially in the west, concocted a variety of miracle cures boasting snake oil as the primary active ingredient, though the special preparation was a patented secret. In 1917 the US government tested Stanley's snake oil, the creation of one Clark Stanley aka "The Rattlesnake King", and found it to a mix of mineral oil, beef fat, pepper, turpentine and camphor.

In the "old world" snake oil has been used for centuries. Richard Stoughton's Elixir was patented in England in 1712, and the Chinese have used it for even longer. There's some possibility that the Chinese version actually had some value since it was derived from water snakes whose fat was high in eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and when used as an ointment might have some inflammation reducing properties, "a plausible remedy for joint pain".

Snake oil, or its close analogs, is still sold.

Peering into the future seldom produces a clear picture. But this is not the case with bio-energy. Its long-term impacts on the global economy appear to be pretty clear, making many long-term predictions quite compelling, including the demise of the price-setting power of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and the end of agricultural protectionism.

First, technology is bound to deliver a biofuel that will be competitive with fossil energy at something like current prices. . .

Second, the world is full of under-utilised land that can grow the biomass that the new technology will require. . .

Third, even if only partially used, this large potential biofuels supply will cap the price of oil because its supply is much more elastic than the supply of oil. . .

Fourth, the price of agricultural land will be influenced by its potential use for bio-energy. As farmers choose what crop would suit them best, they will change what they produce and hence the whole system of relative prices of agricultural produce. . .

Fifth, the increase in the price of agricultural land and of food will relieve governments from the current political pressure to protect the agricultural sector. . .

Sixth, the countries that have the largest endowment of under-utilised lands are in the developing world, especially Africa and Latin America. . .

To make this scenario appealing, the impact of the expansion of the agricultural frontier on the environment and biodiversity, and the distributive effects of the rise in food prices will have to be addressed.

But these problems seem solvable given the expected political benefits in terms of lower net carbon emissions, more energy security, more efficient agricultural policies and greater opportunities for sustainable development.

First, technology is as likely to deliver a fossil fuel, from coal perhaps, that is even more competitive. Biofuels will have to compete with other new technologies, not just old technologies.

Second, the world is not full of under-utilised land. It has lots of land that isn't presently usable but that we know how to fix. That's the case with most of the land in S. America such as the cerrado, the closed lands, that have been made to bloom with modern technologies to amend soils and new plant cultivars that can tolerate their high aluminum content. Still, water is a problem, one that seems likely to get worse rather than better.

Third, agriculture is highly variable due to the whims of weather as well as markets. The current trouble with the heavily subsidized US biofuel industry is a good example. A combination of excessive distilling capacity and poor harvests have left many plants starving for feed stock. It isn't at all clear that the price of fossil oil will be capped. Indeed, it may become even more valuable as demand rises while supply dwindles, and variable production of alternatives send spot prices soaring.

Fourth, it isn't reasonable to believe that biofuel production will be more profitable to farmers that food or fiber. As more land is removed from food production farm gate prices of food will rise too. This is already happening and will accelerate as demand for fuel feedstock increases. Prices of fuel will rise as a consequence, keeping fossil fuels attractive.

Fifth, governments will be under even greater pressure to protect the agricultural sector. As food prices rise and land is switched out of food production consumers will demand regulation and subsidies for food growers. There will be a bonanza for legislators, lobbyists and grifters of all sorts seeking rents in the turmoil that will result.

Sixth, the countries that have so-called "under-utilised lands" are also the last refuges of much of the world's wild life, the "lungs of the planet" so to speak, and the fastest growing populations.

World food production needs to triple in the next few decades to feed the 3 billion additional souls expected to arrive in that time, as well as the nearly one billion that are currently food insecure, and the billions that are currently undernourished to the point that development is impeded. Malnourished young brains don't function as well, making it all the more difficult to educate them.

It will be all we can do to feed ourselves in coming decades. The threats to the environment and biodiversity, including ecosystem services of all sorts, are already dire even if we outlawed biofuels tomorrow. The modern snake oil salesmen neglect to mention the truly staggering costs to the planet and humanity from production of their biofuels. Stepping back from the hype and sales pitch to look at the dynamic global picture reveals that they are talking utter nonsense. We need to do just the opposite of what they recommend. Our energy must come from non-biological sources since we are already exceeding capacity and needs will rise in future.

There's a lot of money to be made from these hustles so we are bound to hear more of these dodgy defenses of biofuels. But I think they won't be around for long since it is such a dumb idea and there are better ones in the works. Humanity progressed when it moved from biofuels such as wood, dung and animal (ie. whale) fats to fossil fuels. Continued progress requires something other than reversion to biofuels. It may involve solar, wave/tide/gravity, wind (a type of solar really), nuclear or even geothermal sources - as well as improved storage and distribution techniques.