Here is a whopper of a clue, don't tell other people what they can and can't drive -- same deal as property rights. Food for fuel, very dumb idea, no matter who owns the land.
I don’t want to tell people what they can/can’t drive. Personally, I have less than zero interest playing the part of a nanny-state buttinski. If people want to drive a Hummer — let ‘em do it. Just make sure that they’re the ones paying for it, not the rest of us.
I do, however, have to laugh at people who claim they want high gas mileage, buy silly hybrids, and then turn up their noses at diesel engines which would give them more fuel efficiency overall than they’re going to get from an Otto-cycle engine. Ethanol, mixed with gasoline, could provide the necessary octane boost to increase gasoline engine efficiency by increasing compression ratios. Sadly, only the Japanese seem to be smart enough to do this by shipping Miller cycle engines (Mazda and Toyota).
As for the whole “food for fuel” line of propaganda: I’ve addressed this on another thread. If we go back to pre-WWI days, the amount of land we are currently planting in corn (about 90 million acres) used to be planted to hay fields for horses. In effect, we (the US) have been here before. When there were about 27 million horses in the US, and 23 million of them were used on farms, we “grew fuel with farmland” in the form of hay.
All this screeching about “food for fuel being a stupid idea” is completely ignoring history. Even if we were devoting 100% of the ground planted to corn to ethanol, we’re only just now duplicating the land cropping allocations of 1915. Americans weren’t wanting for food back then, and they’re certainly not wanting for food today. Matter of fact, Americans would be well served by becoming as skinny as they were (on average) in 1915, compared to their rotundness today.