[Balding_Eagle]

Ethanol is only a "viable" option because the taxpayer is subsidizing it as well.

That's true for oil as well. The subsidies for oil are (understandably) much higher.

Remember Gulf War I? The war fought for the free flow of oil? Imagine that the US military had not fought that war, or fought the war and sent the bill to the oil companies?

Sometimes the subsidies we complain about are not as out in the open as we might imagine.

[Myrddin]

In the case of oil, it takes a much longer time to develop the resources and build the refineries than the annual cycle of growing crops. The country runs on oil. Farming runs on oil (machines, pumping water, making fertilizer and pesticides, harvesting and delivery to market).

[Timeout]

This reminds me of the early 1990’s—local governments were all rushing to convert their buses and municipal vehicles to natural gas. (I heard this morning that they’re doing it again). At the same time, they were demanding all coal fired plants convert to natural gas burners. I.e., gas was “the thing”.

Fast forward a few years and, of course, natural gas prices were through the roof and California was having rolling blackouts.

Now they’re screwing up the corn market with their ethanol subsidies. Beware the politician meddling in commodity markets.