>This kinda reads like a corn industry hit-piece on a rival technology. The way that this is framed really betrays either a bias or a significant gap in unders

>This kinda reads like a corn industry hit-piece on a rival technology. The way that this is framed really betrays either a bias or a significant gap in understanding on the part of the author. The big one is their neglect of the costs to society borne from extracting and refining diesel from fossil fuel. Instead they focused solely on the costs of the subsidy. Look at how they mentioned the Argentine subsidy: "Argentina was doing the U.S. a favor, helping it satisfy its biodiesel demands more cheaply" They're framing this as a net positive for America, but it betrays their perspective: they don't see disincentivization of biodiesel production by American farmers as a negative thing.