“But if ethanol made so much sense, we wouldn’t have to subsidize it or mandate its consumption”
Ok - that makes some sense.
So as soon as we agree to stop HEAVILY subsidizing oil, roads, airports, etc, as well, we should stop subsidizing ethanol.
The last time I checked it didn't take a gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of gasoline. Don't ethanol powered cars drive on the same roads? What exactly is the point there? All subsidised things are equal? You don't have to consume one mile of road to produce one mile of road? You don't have to burn up one airport to produce another airport? Put oil in your tank and food in your stomach. You get the same amount of energy, and more food.
Oil provides more revenue from royalty payments and taxes than any financial assistance it receives.
“So as soon as we agree to stop HEAVILY subsidizing oil, roads, airports, etc, as well, we should stop subsidizing ethanol.”
What has “roads, airports” got to do with your premise - we would be using them no matter what fuel our vehicles used and THEY - the roads and airports - are public enterprises to begin with, unlike the private enterprises involved in ethanol, which also, unlike the oil companies, get taxpayer money directly handed out to them.