Using E0 hasn't been cheap for America. The low pump prices paid have made for a car market where small and efficient is less popular than elsewhere on earth, and the prices paid for middle eastern stability (which hasn't been very successful) has been footed by huge (mainly US) military expenditure.
One of the things worse than burning petroleum in cars is burning corn ethanol in cars. It has essentially all of the downside, only amplified through energy inefficiency and politics.
If I had any political power, I'd end the ethanol subsidies. That would be the simplest change to save ~$20b or so ($6b in direct costs, higher corn prices, corn subsidies, use of fossil water and other limited resources, less fuel efficiency)
Small and efficient are popular elsewhere because US gas taxes are hugely lower than the rest of the world (other than producer countries that have huge subsidies, like Saudi and Venezuela). US taxes average 49c a gallon vs UK $4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax and thats what makes the difference.
Yes. And much of the rest of the world perceives (rightly or wrongly) that the Middle East is that mess that it is in part because of the US need to maintain their low prices by guaranteeing supply through military aid and maintenance of some terrible governments.
Unfortunately, making ethanol out of corn still uses a lot of oil: farm equipment for harvesting corn is powered by diesel fuel and fertilizer is made of petroleum-based chemicals.
I don't understand this argument. Burning E10, my car gets at least 10% worse gas mileage than on E0. So how exactly is any fossil fuel being conserved?
