There are few human skills more crucial than being able to recognize a mistake and act to fix it. Whether you're a fifth-grader or a CEO, going into denial when you're mired in failure makes the problem worse.

Unfortunately, we're now witnessing a textbook case of a massive enterprise gone haywire that those responsible abjectly refuse to fix – even as the evidence keeps pouring in to confirm it is a multifaceted disaster.

We're talking about the federal government's multibillion-dollar, long-range commitment to subsidize grain-based ethanol production and use it to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce the emissions that cause global warming. As a result of these subsidies and a long-term federal commitment to ever-higher production of renewable energy sources, a full one-third of this year's U.S. corn crop is likely to be turned into fuel.

But has this helped reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? Very marginally, at best; even as U.S. ethanol production has more than doubled since 2003, oil imports have increased.

Meanwhile, new research has deeply undermined previous views about the environmental advantages of burning ethanol instead of oil and raised pointed new questions about the mass consumption of water in ethanol production. (It takes as much as 2,000 gallons of water to yield one gallon of ethanol.)

So what has been the main effect of our ethanol policy? To help trigger the worst inflation of food costs in more than a generation. Corn prices have more than tripled since 2004. Because animal agriculture relies on corn-based feed grains, this has triggered a 29 percent, one-year jump in the cost of eggs and smaller but still sharp increases in the cost of cereal products, beef and sweetened beverages. Because corn is now being planted on fields once devoted to other crops, those crops are also becoming costlier, thanks to shortages.

Compounding all these headaches is the possibility that America's loopy bet on grain-based ethanol could keep research dollars from and suppress interest in far more promising biofuels – ones based on inedible organic material, not the basics of our food chain. Between farm state senators and lawmakers beholden to their agribusiness contributors, the pressure to maintain the status quo is substantial. It must be overcome.

Unfortunately, most of Congress is a captive of this status quo – as well as presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. The Illinois senator's home state is the nation's second-largest corn producer, and he has been a strong supporter of turning food into fuel – even as the empirical case for grain-based ethanol has disappeared.

Obama should heed his Republican rival. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has long railed against our ethanol-energy policy, describing it as anti-consumer, unhelpful to the environment and ultimately counterproductive. Each passing day brings new headlines that show that on ethanol, at least, McCain is absolutely right.

Reprinted from The San Diego Union-Tribune.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.