It looks obvious

One of the arguments used by those who are skeptical about the benefits of the unfettered free market is that only the Government, which is not motivated by short term profits, can be trusted to regulate policies that are impartial and motivated by the common good and not personal profit. This argument is often use when discussing the global warming and the alternatives to prevent it (assuming that human activity has any significant effect on the global warming phenomena). 

John Stossel’s review of the the Ethanol myths, and can be set as an example for the fallacy in believing that central coordination and regulation of the society is more efficient than the chaos of the free market. The Ethanol become one of the most known products to reduce pollution, that increase the risks of global warming, and to lead the US toward energy independence.  However, as Stossel argue, these claims are far from being correct; Ethanol is more expensive, after adding the cost of the government’s subsidies, doesn’t save energy, cannot be mobilized by pipelines, doesn’t lead to any significant reduction in dependency in foreign energy suppliers and is worse polluter than regular gasoline.

But if these argument are all correct why do the entire flock of Presidential candidates demonstrate strong support in Ethanol?

I’m pretty sure that the unfettered free market wouldn’t produce much worse results…