Steve Lusardi wrote:

Jim,
Your research is incomplete. The evidence is just below our border in Mexico.


Prior to NAFTA the Mexicans grew all their own corn. Then along came
NAFTA and after 10 years of flooding the Mexican market with cheap US
taxpayer-subsidized corn a million Mexican corn farmers lost their land
and livelihood. So now we have a million displaced Mexican peasants
(many of whom have no viable choice but to head to El Norte) and a
country that can no longer feed itself and you present that as a better
use of Americas corn than making ethanol.
That is so twisted and sick it is nauseating. You're like the guy who
murders his parents and then thinks he should be given a break because
he's an orphan.

If you consider the surface area required to harvest oil bearing produce that equates
to just 50% of our current petroleum consumption, there would be no available room for food production.

You just made that statistic up out of thin air, but nobody has said
anything about replacing 50% of petroleum with ethanol.

FYI, The US corn farmers currently supply about 10% of the fuel used in
spark ignition engines. Farmers grow that corn on 40% fewer acres than
what US farmers planted in corn in the 30's and 40's. Only 1 out of 3
bushels of corn harvest goes to ethanol plants and that still leaves
way too much corn left over to be used for mischief.

oil is still the best battery known (With the exception of Nuclear), there is no known substitute.

Money is the substitute for oil. The US imports 70% of its petroleum and
in exchange the US pays money. How long do you think that can continue?
Or do you advocate that we invade countries (that have oil resources)
and murder their leaders and steal their resources? Do you think that is
more moral than producing ethanol?