Donald the Cnut cannot hold back the climate tide by denying it, and we will all suffer as a result.

In some ways Trump is like King Cnut (or Knut), or Canute as we know him. Canute resisted the incoming tide. Trump is resisting the climate crisis.

Canute Reproving His Courtiers

But in many ways, they are different.

Both men were ambitious. For years, King Cnut, also known as King Canute, was King of England, Denmark and Norway, countries surrounding the North Sea.

Trump is just a wannabe king who wants to rule all of the Western Hemisphere, but seems likely to soon lose his grip even on the USA.

Both men had fawning sycophants. Trump has his cabinet meetings. And as an entry in The People’s Gallery of Engravings, from which the above image is taken, says:

“The evening was far advanced when I reached the celebrated spot where Canute the Dane is said to have given his memorable lesson to the flattering and servile courtiers of his train.”

There are two versions of the story of Canute sitting on his throne at the sea’s edge, commanding the tide not to come in and soak him, as the sea ignored him and the tide came in as usual. One says that when he saw the sea ignore him and wash over him, he realised that he was not all-powerful, and said to his sycophants, “Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless, and there is no king worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven, earth and the sea obey eternal laws.” The other says that he knew all along that this would happen and intended it as a lesson to them. I cannot imagine Trump’s story matching either of these. (Marriott Edgar wrote a third in her irreverent poem, “Canute The Great“.)

But the main difference between the two men is this: nobody was harmed in Canute’s story. Trump, with his active work to promote global warming, is harming not only Americans but the whole world, particularly future generations.

So, what has he done this time?

Trump has already deregulated the fossil fuel industry and other polluters to a considerable extent, and done what he could to block the progress of renewables. I’ve been working on a series of articles about this, but unfortunately writing about his other egregious acts plus more personal stuff like having to file my tax return has meant that they are not ready to be published, yet. Soon, I hope.

Now, he has in effect stripped the ability of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases - a gift to ‘billionaire polluters’. Trump called this “the single largest deregulatory action in American history”, which means it is the most harmful action too. Not a legacy I would want.

He commissioned some climate deniers to produce a report contradicting the endangerment finding and used it to justify the deregulation. But the report is a farce, full of debunked ‘research’.

The Endangerment Finding

At the heart of this madness is his repeal of the Endangerment Finding, of which Trump said “This is all a scam, a giant scam.” He’s wrong, as usual. It not only is real, but it is a clear and present danger.

In 2006 in a case called Massachusetts v. EPA, the State of Massachusetts argued that the EPA should regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as it did other air pollutants. The EPA disagreed. In 2007 the Supreme Court found in favour of Massachusetts. Two years later, in 2009, the EPA issued its Endangerment Finding that six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) -were a threat to public health and welfare, and set greenhouse gas emission standards for light-duty vehicles.

Trump’s EPA has now reversed this finding, so federal agencies can no longer regulate vehicles for gas emissions. The same approach will likely spread to other sources of emissions, such as power plants. The EPA is already on it. It remains to be seen whether the American auto industry will be able to produce vehicles to foreign standards while its home market has lower ones.

What are the consequences?

• Dirtier vehicles and power plants leading to dirtier air and poorer health.

• Loss of competitiveness in the world auto market if automakers do not switch to EVs like much of the rest of the world.

• Greater losses and higher insurance costs (where insurance is still available) due to the effects of global warming - in the USA and abroad, outweighing any cost savings (claimed to be $1.3tn).

• Greater climate migration with its associated tensions and even wars.

• More sickness and therefore medical costs, particularly for people near power plants. MAHA? No way, the way they are going.

• Though given the fact that Trump’s EPA does little enforcement anyway, perhaps it will not make as much difference as it could.

• And maybe it will lessen the demand for rare earths.

What next

This will be challenged in the courts. The auto industry will suffer from the uncertainty, which will last at least a year.

The fossil fuel industry will be celebrating, after getting so much for a measly $1bn each.

It is important to keep up the pressure on the EPA and politicians. This must not be allowed to stand.