This makes me think of The West Wing back in 2005 with Josh and Santos arguing about whether to pander to Iowa about ethanol subsidies. Josh won, Santos pandered.
I guess if you want this to change, you've first got to stop Iowa being so ludicrously influential in the presidential election cycle.
Iowa has been doing a solid job of making the Iowa caucuses significantly less relevant all on their own. The state and its registered Dem and GOP cohorts have become much less representative of the nation as a whole over the last two decades.
The last time the winner mattered was, perhaps, Obama 2008. The contested races since have yielded the following winners: Huckabee, Santorum, Clinton, Ted Cruz, and Buttigieg/Sanders.
On one hand, food subsidies is a pillar to national food security. On the other hand, ending beef subsidies would do wonders for my vegan socialist agenda.
There is scope for substitution. About 10% of all grains are used to make biofuel; and 18% of vegetable oils go to biodiesel. Finland and Croatia have weakened mandates that require petrol to include fuel from crops. Others should follow their lead.
Though my understanding is that ethanol as a fuel additive is largely an anti-knock lead substitute. Alcohol was the originally-proposed solution, before the creation and adoption of tetraethyl lead. Apparent cost advantages drove the adoption of the latter. True costs proved somewhat greater.
My read is that the "biofuel" branding of fuel ethanol is actually a misdirection, though I don't have a good source on that.
I think it can be used for that, but it is also used to cut gasoline and therefore make a single barrel of oil go further. Normally ethanol is less than 10 percent, but I think it can be as high as 15 or 20 percent at the pump right now. Modern engines can handle it just fine, but it does slightly reduce fuel economy.
It's also an oxygenation agent, and replaces MTBE (methyl tert-butyl ether) which ... oh, also substituted for tetraethyl lead. (I thought MTBE was an anti-smog treatment.)
MTBE turned out to leach into groundwater quite readily and there was a pretty widespread outcry about it in the early aughts. Again, ethanol is a replacement (mentioned in the Wikipedia article above).
And yes, since anti-knock agents effectively slow combustion (and ethanol has lower energy-density than petroleum), net fuel efficiency is slightly reduced on a volumetric basis. Net effect remains better overall engine performance.
Depending on what state you're in in the Midwest you can sometimes get E85 gas (85% ethanol). It's always clearly marked because not all modern engines can handle that high of a concentration.
There’s a place for strategic food reserves and ethanol does a good job of maintaining excess capacity without tanking commodity prices (and thus killing future supplies)
