2 ms·
I mean the subsidies exist regardless of what the corn is used for and the rural folks are the most angry about ethanol in their fuel. I'm not sure this explana
by Spivak 2y ago
I mean the subsidies exist regardless of what the corn is used for and the rural folks are the most angry about ethanol in their fuel. I'm not sure this explanation lines up all the way.
Out in the country is the only place I can still find 100% gasoline.
- MBCook 2y agoIt’s a lot harder to justify subsidies if the corn was just rotting in the field. But mandating a certain percentage of ethanol ensures a minimum level of demand, preventing that problem.
- _heimdall 2y agoThe irony there is that most of the government subsidies and crop insurance programs come with stipulations related to how the crops are used. The last two years corn farmers in my area have had a hell if a time with drought. The corn ends up rotting in the field specifically because they can't claim insurance or get government assistance if they find another use for the corn, even if the other use only pays a fraction of what a full harvest would have yielded.
- subhro 2y agohttps://pure-gas.org https://pure-gas.org
- jollyllama 2y ago> rural folks are the most angry about ethanol in their fuel I think there is some kind of presupposition here about how voting correlates to policy as enacted. What I would put forward instead is that regardless of how rural people vote, it's Big Ag lobbying and setting the agenda/policy.