With the population currently better informed and conscious of issues related to environmental sustainability, when people routinely goes to a fuel station to refuel their vehicle, the considerations for choosing the kind of fuel certainly include the reduction of harm to nature. Currently, any type of biofuel is seen as a better option for sustainability and reducing carbon dioxide in the air. However, this widely accepted logic is flawed, as it does not account for the entire production cycle of different types of biofuel, which often involves tractors usually powered by diesel (a highly polluting fuel), as well as fertilizers (which significantly harm the environment), deforestation, and substantial socioeconomic impacts involved in this equation. Ultimately, a great deal of pollution occurs during the production of biofuel to achieve low CO2 emissions afterward, which seems environmentally counterproductive. While biofuel is often marketed as a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels, its entire production cycle—particularly in developing countries—can sometimes lead to greater harm than the benefits it claims to offer. The conclusion is that later generations of biofuel may be environmentally and social superior, but not yet economically viable. Similarly, science must invest in other more sustainable forms of energy, such as hydroelectric, solar, wind, provided that the environmental and socialeconomic impact is minimized.