Over 100 PhDs signed a letter to Governor Schwarzeneggar urging that the CARB base their decisions on science.  There are no science based conclusions re indirect land use changes from any fuel including gasoline at this point (although, it is known that an area the size of Texas has been set aside for oil exploration and that means roads which leads to illegal logging which people knowledgeable in deforestation recognize as the leading cause of deforestation).

Link to the letter:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=194946

The CARB was influenced by a "study" by Searchinger et al, which did not even make the models they used to arrive at their conclusions available to others so they could test their conclusions.  This is not science, it is religion and promulgation of propaganda.  Matthews & Tan severely criticized not only the authors of the study but the Journal Science for even publishing it: 

"Indeed if you wished to put US ethanol production in the worst possible light, assuming the worst possible set of production conditions guaranteed to give the worst possible ILUC effects, then the assumptions chosen would not be far from those actually presented (without argument or discussion of alternatives) in the Searchinger et al. paper. This, together with the fact that the paper is not replicable, since the models and parameters used are not accessible, places a question mark over the refereeing procedures used for this paper by the journal Science. A paper that seeks to place a procedure in the worst possible light, and refrains from allowing others to check its results, is perhaps better described as ideology than as science."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14224393/Biofuels-and-indirect-land-use-change-effects-the-debate-continues

  Another study highly critical of the Searchinger "study" pointed out that by improperly accounting for the substutution of DDGS (a coproduct of Ethanol fuel) Searchinger et al over estimated the land required to substitute for land used for corn for ethanol by 100%

"A fundamental problem raised by several respondents arises from Searchinger’s
inaccurate assumption (see 6 above) of ‘pound for pound’ displacement of corn.
Allowing for the higher protein of DDGS, and also for land to replace the oil
foregone (we assumed oil palm); we calculate that Searchinger’s assumption about
DOUBLES the land required to substitute for US corn-ethanol."
http://www.renewablefuelsagency.org/_db/_documents/ADAS_Seachinger_critique.pdf

 The point here is that the scientific study of indirect land use changes has yet to provide conclusive, reliable (quantifiable) conclusions about land use changes.  The "study" by Searchinger et al is clearly not an example of anything close to a scientific inquiry of indirect land use changes for any fuel.

Since the climate models are underestimating the acceleration of the Global Warming (most likely due to inadequate metrics of thawing permafrost) the direct affects of burning fossil fuels need to be updated.  After that is accomplished the most recent scientific conclusions on Ethanol's reduction of GHG emissions over gasoline (51%) will no doubt be due for an increase. http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0901220.shtml

 What those who say they understand that Global Warmng is real, and human activity induced, fail to face is that we do not have much time to start making appreciable reductions to CO2 emissions from gasoline consumption.  We have, at most, 10 years to make some appreciable reductions to CO2 emissiona.  It will take 20 years for hybrids to reduce CO2 emissions for cars about 10% to 20% (http://www.geocities.com/jwalkerxy/voltz.xls)  whereas we can triple ethanol production in 10 years and get an impact much sooner - when it will have a much bigger affect on global warming.  We need hybrids absolutely, but the inability of individuals to recognize the failure to increase ethanol production in the next several years will consign the Earth's population to the worst ecological disaster in human history.

  The simple fact is you can replace the fuel faster (and more efficiently) than you can replace the cars that burn the fuel.  Delaying aggressive ramping up of ethanol production will allow global warming to increase to a point that we won't be able to slow it down no matter how much we reduce CO2 emissions 20 years from now.  Once the permafrost starts thawing too much it will be producing far more CO2 than we can cut from our output.  At 1,500 Billion tons of carbon http://www.physorg.com/news140441692.html the permafrost has about 55 times the total annual CO2 output of the entire  World.  Once defrosting of this organic material gets underway we will not be able to match it's production of CO2 (and methane) from decaying organic matter by any amount of CO2 emissions reductions.  That is why we must do those things which produce the quickest results (and still develop and deploy hybrids).