While I understand your point, the article mentions soybean, corn, and hay as the culprit crops. Beyond that, don’t you think your parent comment is a little misguided? How is corn ethanol what environmentalists tout as “renewable energy”?

I suggest you do a bit of reading if you truly don't understand that corn ethanol is widely considered a "renewable fuel."

Corn ethanol is widely considered a 'renewable fuel' by those invested in the oil industry, since it allows them to keep more of their accumulated capital.

It's much less common amongst people who are attempting to improve the outcome of climate change, the people you seem to be tarring with this brush.

California policy makers' (ardent environmentalists) "Low Carbon Fuel Standard" require 10% corn-derived ethanol in gasoline sold in the state. Are they not environmentalisting hard enough?

No. 10%, first, is short of 100%. It's short of the 15% required in Iowa, not known for its environmental policy. It's a subsidy to corn producers that doesn't significantly affect oil producers. An actual carbon reduction method would be phasing out oil entirely.

Ditto, it’s a handout to agribusiness, worsens fuel quality, and has a very debatable benefit otherwise.

So, choke the oceans too? Which is it? Is corn-derived ethanol a fabulous "renewable energy", or is it yesterday's bad idea?

It is, purely, a mass transfer of cash from consumers to Archer Daniels Midland, among the world's worst corporations. It has uniformly negative benefit for anybody besides Archer Daniels Midland.

Anytime you have occasion to communicate with somebody involved in federal governance—e.g., any member of Congress—always ask what they are doing to stop subsiding Archer Daniels Midland.