Edit: The US created biofuel subsidies a few years ago and it’s led to poor use of land with questionable climate impact. It’s effectively become a wealth transfer to support poor rural American communities, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing but there’re probably more effective ways to do that intentionally.
My immediate reaction to this is: it's probably a wewlth transfer to the few landlords owning the land and probably charging higher rent, not to the communities.
Of course I haven't analysed the data. If I am wrong, hopefully someone will feel compelled to correct me.
How common is farm landlords?
[1] - https://nypost.com/2023/11/25/business/how-bill-gates-quietl...
[2] - https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Re...
It's also very not true that farmers are poor in the US (median household income about 30% greater than general population). This mindset is like a century old.
A few years ago? Corn ethanol subsidies have been a thing for my entire life.
It's a net-negative fuel. Costs more fuel to produce than it provides. It's literally just a way to waste water, farmland, huge quantities of diesel (burned by engines exempt from any sort of emissions), labor, etc.
What changed is that ethanol has been forced by regulations into more and more use over time. That has driven up demand for corn, and one of the worse side effects is that a major food staple for Mexico has gone up dramatically in price.
> effectively become a wealth transfer to support poor rural American communities,
If you think that's bad, stop and think for a moment about what purpose the US military serves for rural America, both directly through personnel but also indirectly through all the incredibly wasteful equipment, service, and supply contracts.
The US military's primary reason for existence is force projection, but its secondary is keeping rural American's uneployment from skyrocketing.