Luckily the US hasn't spent millions in the Middle East protecting Americas cheap oil supply and luckily that was the governments money not tax payers. Also luckily we can't put a price on human lives or tax the public to replace dead soldiers so their wives and kids can have a dad and husband. But building the economy in the US, jobs, money that is spent over and over again bringing tax dollars back every time. I doubt the ethanol subsidy cost the tax payers ten percent of what the total of the subsidy actually was. I personally thought it was genius and I don't even live in the US. A big step to oil independence and a huge boost to the US economy at a time when it really needed it.
I never said I was a supporter of the wars, etc.
And if they didn't protect those supplies, oil price would go up making ethanol a more viable contender. It's the free market, quit screwing with it. That goes for both sides, oil and ethanol.
Of course you don't oppose it, you don't pay the taxes for it and benefit from the higher commodity prices. It's a no-brainer for you.
If you think that oil companies would sell ethanol if they could make money at it, then why do they spend so much money to kill off. Ethanol is a threat to their market share. In 2011, the US military, spent $82,000,000,000, just to protect the oil shipping lanes, is this not an indirect subsidy to the oil companies? This doesn't take into account the billions spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I realize ethanol is not a solution in of itself, but it can be part of a total overall energy solution. Another thing to remember, is that there are no, no-fly zones over any US ethanol plants, no US military personal have ever been killed protecting a US ethanol plant, and I'm, pretty sure, that none of the dollars we spend on ethanol, finds its way to a middle eastern terrorist organization. Last of all, can you image what would happen to the price of fuel, if suddenly 10% of the fuel supply was removed from the market.
They spend that money because the gov't is/was pouring money into subsidies. I would think that having the gov't screwing with the market against you isn't very fun and I would fight back. I'm sure everyone here would fight back if the gov't started subsidizing something that they didn't produce.
I'm not totally against ethanol, I'm against gov't interference in the free market. I think there should obviously be some oversight but gov't is most often a burden. There's 76K families that produce 80% of the food in the US and 114K USDA employees. Kinda ridiculous don't you think?