The EPA issued a ruling which claimed corn-based ethanol can provide significant reductions in carbon dioxide when compared with conventional gasoline or diesel fuel. That finding, would be controversial on its own, particularly given the many studies that have been done that show exactly the opposite. But here’s the real whopper: the EPA’s own data shows that using more ethanol-blended gasoline will make air quality worse. For people who have been following this issue, that finding is not surprising. The agency has already admitted that ethanol is bad for air quality.

But on Wednesday, the agency published a statement which said that ethanol-blended gasoline will degrade air quality enough to “lead up to 245 cases of adult premature mortality.”

It’s critical to note that the agency didn’t spell out exactly how much it expects air pollution to increase. It only says that emissions of “hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx), acetaldehyde and ethanol” are expected to increase while other pollutants, like carbon monoxide and benzene are expected to decrease. It goes on to say that the emission changes are “projected to lead to increases in population-weighted annual average ambient PM [particulate matter] and ozone concentrations.”

Think about that for a moment. The EPA has just passed a rule on renewable fuels which plainly says that it will make air quality worse.

Thus, the EPA is now enforcing rules on renewable fuels that run directly counter to its stated goals. The agency has declared that “Reducing emissions of NOx is a crucial component of EPA's strategy for cleaner air.” And the agency’s web site makes it clear why it wants to reduce NOx emissions: NOx can cause ground-level ozone, acid rain, increases in particulate matter, cause water pollution, unleash toxic chemicals, reduce visibility, and cause climate change. The agency also explains in very clear terms that VOCs lead to the creation of ground-level ozone, one of the most dangerous urban pollutants. Ozone is created when NOx and VOCs are mixed in the presence of sunlight.

Here’s EPA’s primer on ozone:

Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground-level ozone also can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. Ground-level ozone also damages vegetation and ecosystems. In the United States alone, ozone is responsible for an estimated $500 million in reduced crop production each year.

The Obama administration, bowing once again to pressure from the ethanol lobby and the farm state delegation, has assured the continuation of the corn ethanol scam for years to come. Indeed, the Washington Post predicts that the new biofuels guidelines “could open the way for large increases in the production of corn-based ethanol.”

The Obama administration’s paean to coal came in the form of a presidential memorandum called “A Comprehensive Federal Strategy on Carbon Capture and Storage.” The first paragraph of the document declares that the coal industry has “supported quality high-paying jobs for American workers” while providing “an important domestic source of reliable, affordable energy.” It continues, saying that “charting a path toward clean coal is essential” and that the “rapid commercial development and deployment of clean coal technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS), will help position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.”

The document goes on to note the creation of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage that, “shall develop within 180 days of the date of this memorandum a proposed plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years, with a goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016.”

Goals are good. But the idea of overcoming the barriers to cost-effective deployment of CCS within a decade is pure fantasy. Of course that hasn’t stopped many people from hyping CCS. For instance, in May 2009, Nobuo Tanaka, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, called CCS a “vital” technology for greenhouse gas control “that will be needed to make power generation and heavy industry sustainable.” About that same time, US Energy Secretary Steven Chu gave a speech in Rome in which he declared that “we need to capture the carbon” and sequester the emissions “safely and we have to do this in an economically viable way.”

In August 2009, David Sandalow, an assistant secretary of energy, testified before the Senate and declared that “it is technically feasible, through retrofitting and new construction, to ensure that the entire US coal fleet employs CCS by 2035.”

Note that Sandalow said CCS is “technically feasible.” He didn’t say it made economic sense. And that’s the rub: no one knows how to do CCS in an economically viable way. That point was made clear by the Congressional Research Service in 2008:

Developing technology to capture CO2 in an environmentally, economically, and operationally acceptable manner—especially from coal-fired power plants—has been an ongoing interest of the federal government for a decade. Nonetheless, the technology on the whole is still under development: no commercial device is currently available to capture carbon from coal plants.

Even if there were a commercial device capable of capturing carbon dioxide and doing so in a cost-effective manner, the volumes of carbon dioxide to be managed are staggering.

In 2006, global carbon dioxide emissions totaled 29.1 billion tons. Let’s assume that policymakers mandate a program requiring the annual sequestration of 10% – about 3 billion tons – of global carbon dioxide emissions. That 3 billion tons provides a good metric. It’s a reasonable starting point and it’s equal to about one-half of US carbon dioxide emissions, which totaled 5.9 billion tons in 2006.

But how can we get our minds around that 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide? Well, according to calculations done by Vaclav Smil, if that volume of carbon dioxide were compressed to about 1,000 pounds per square inch, it would have about the same volume as the total volume of global annual oil production. Now, again, that volume is still too large to be understandable. But we can bring them into sharper focus by cutting them down to daily figures.

In 2008, global oil production was about 82 million barrels per day. Thus, 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions would be approximately equal to that volume of oil. So here’s the punch line: getting rid of just 10% of global carbon dioxide per day would mean filling the equivalent of 41 VLCC supertankers every day. (Each VLCC holds about 2 million barrels.) Given that huge volume of carbon dioxide, the immediate questions are obvious: where will we put it? And how will we put it there?

Alas, the calculations provided in the past few paragraphs appear to be of little interest to the Obama administration, which continues its refusal to acknowledge the potential benefits of using more natural gas for power generation. Instead Obama and his appointees are standing up for corn and coal.