Citing researchers working for IEA Bioenergy, Biopact reports that "Africa could produce more than 400 Exajoules of exportable and sustainably produced biofuels by 2050, without impacting the food, fuel and fiber needs of its rapidly growing populations. This is roughly the amount of energy currently used by the entire world from all sources (oil, gas, nuclear, renewables)." In other words, we can—technically at least--meet all our energy needs from biofuels, and even export surpluses, without suffering the catastrophic food shortages prophesied by some opponents of biofuels; we can have our food and burn it. Good. But I would caution against drawing the tempting conclusion from this report that Africa can pursue biofuels as the main (if not the only) solution to its energy problems. History and common-sense show that such 'silver bullet' strategies are inherently insecure. What if—touch wood—after becoming totally reliant on biofuels, the feedstocks that supply Africa's biofuel refineries of the future are either wiped out or seriously compromised by some devastating disease? It would be tantamount to jumping from the proverbial frying pan of expensive fossil fuels into the fire of biofuel insecurity. In my opinion, Africa's energy experts, governments and international agencies must see biofuels for the region as part of a least-cost mix of alternative energy sources, rather than another 'one best way' to eliminate energy poverty. I would celebrate the end of the food versus biofuels debate only if it does not give rise to a new tyranny of biofuels taking over from the authoritarian global fossil energy regime, with its own version of the energy insecurities and scarcities under which oil-importing countries currently suffer.