If changes are going to be made to the ethanol subsidies, shouldn't changes be made to oil subsidies as well?
according to this article, http://www.tradereform.org/2010/11/daryll-ray-oil-subsidies-..., if oil subsidies are $150 billion (excluding related military activity) and ethanol subsidies are $16 billion and ethanol is making up approx 4% of US oil consumption.
Actual oil subsidies, yes. However, that's not relevant to whether ethanol subsidies are a good idea unless you're arguing that two wrongs make a right. So ....
As to the "substance" of your claim, the article doesn't cite the alleged subsidies.
You're not the first person to claim significant oil subsidies. However, when I've investigated specific claims in the past, I've found them a combination of wrong and dishonest. Maybe you'll be different.
BTW - The US gets very little of its oil from the middle east. That oil goes to Europe, so the "military" subsidy is actually a Europe subsidy.
Oil is globally fungible only because the US wants it to be. The US could easily decide that oil doesn't leave the americas and let Europe fend for itself wrt the middle east. If that's what you want, fine, but be honest about it. If that's not what you want, congrats, you're a supporter of the so called "military subsidy".
I need to read the article(s), but there is one valid, limited application of ethanol in the industry/product. It is superior to MTBE from an environmental perspective.
That means, as an additive. Not as a primary fuel source. And for this purpose, no subsidy is needed, as far as I know (and now that the risk associated with MTBE is prohibitive including from a business perspective).
P.S. Oh, and Brazil is making pretty good use of ethanol, although I'm not too familiar with the environmental downside in their production -- I suspect there is some.
In my lifetime, we've added ethanol subsidies, tariffs, and usage requirements.
There was a suggestion that the mohair subsidy be killed, but I don't think that it happened.