The fact that fossil fuels get any subsidy is obnoxious. They're the entrenched necessary evil that needs to be made obsolete. So of course alternative fuels ar

The fact that fossil fuels get any subsidy is obnoxious. They're the entrenched necessary evil that needs to be made obsolete. So of course alternative fuels are subsidized, and should be until they displace fossil fuels. Farming is most certainly a problem, and I fully understand and agree with the Harper's article -- but it is a straw man in this discussion. I merely pointed out that an article authored by an oil company neglected to include the true cost of their product vs. competitors. And, unless the true cost is realized (most likely in the form of taxes on carbon emissions), fossil fuels will remain the most viable source of energy. It doesn't mean I/we have to accept it, there is a better way.