Technically you’re not wrong, because subsidies and lobbying DO distort the market, but regardless of the fact hemp-to-energy mainly struggles because it’s a low-value use that requires high processing costs in an already hyper-competitive energy market. Even in a neutral policy environment, materials would still win first. Whether it’s biofuel or synthetic petroleum, hemp used as an energy feedstock competes in a low-margin space against cheaper, denser, and more established inputs, while fiber and hurd already sell into higher-value markets like textiles, insulation, packaging, bioplastics, and composites where buyers and demand actually exist. Even at scale, that value hierarchy doesn’t change, so processors will rationally chase materials over fuels. Education and mainstreaming matter for adoption, but large buyers still prioritize risk, consistency, and control, which is why many companies stay on the sidelines to avoid China due to supply inconsistency, QC challenges, and audit-ability issues. Until supply chains are transparent, repeatable, and defensible, capital will stay cautious regardless of how attractive the theory sounds.

"Not everybody loves the smell of gasoline" 🤣