Trump’s Interior Nominee Was for Climate Action Before He Was Against It

These days Ryan Zinke is a climate change skeptic. And he’ll be in charge of our national parks.

Gage Skidmore/Planet Pix via ZUMA


On Friday the Wall Street Journal reported that Donald Trump was set to appoint Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) to head the Department of the Interior. But Trump being Trump, by Tuesday he’d evidently had a change of heart, and instead of the chair of the House Republican Conference, he settled on a new name—Montana Rep. Ryan Zinke (R), an ex-Navy SEAL who was one of Trump’s biggest supporters during the campaign.

The choice of Zinke, who once referred to Hillary Clinton as “the anti-christ,” makes some sense. He is a geologist, and as the at-large representative for a rural Western state, his work has focused in large part on public lands, natural resources, and tribal issues—the primary responsibilities of the Interior Department. But Zinke has also demonstrated a pointed skepticism about climate change.

It wasn’t always that way. In 2010, as a member of the Montana Legislature, he signed on to a letter calling global warming “a threat multiplier for instability in the most volatile regions of the world” and arguing that “the clean energy and climate challenge is America’s new space race.” The letter warned of the “catastrophic” costs and “unprecedented economic consequences” associated with failing to act on climate change and asked President Barack Obama and then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to push through sweeping climate and clean-energy legislation.

That was then. But Zinke rose through the ranks of Montana Republicans with big support from the less clean corners of the energy industry and has been singing a different tune ever since. By the summer of 2014, when he was running for his first term in Congress, he said he’d seen no evidence that rising CO2 levels affected the climate. “It’s not a hoax, but it’s not proven science either,” he said at one debate. By 2015, he’d fully reversed himself, reportedly telling a reporter from PBS that climate change did not present a national security threat—nor was it even man-made.

A few months later, he’d staked out yet another position in an interview with the Bozeman Daily Chronicle. “I think without question the climate’s changing—it has always changed, but it is changing,” he said. “If you go up to Glacier Park, you have your lunch in one of the glaciers, you’ll see the glacier recede while you eat lunch. So I have seen the change.” But, he added, he couldn’t speak to what exactly was causing those changes, and he expressed his skepticism about existing climate models. He chastised the president for connecting Superstorm Sandy to global warming.

“I think we need to be prudent,” he said. “If we’re playing Russian Roulette and there’s a one in—say you’ve got a six shot [gun]. You have a one-in-six chance of that chamber being a loaded bullet, and you spin it. Are you gonna put it to your head and pull the trigger? So even if there’s a one-in-six chance of global warming and it’s a catastrophe, then I think you need to be prudent.”

But he left little secret then or since about what he believed the government’s real priority should be—encouraging domestic energy development, specifically in oil, gas, and coal.

Zinke, has described himself as a “conservationist” in the mold of Theodore Roosevelt, specifically citing the ex-president’s creed that “conservation means development as much as it does protection.” In his 2016 book, American Commander, he rails against efforts to get the Interior Department to protect the Sage Grouse, complains about environmentalist opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, and laments that oil companies have been unfairly targeted with fines for “the alleged death of a handful of ducks.”

Maybe Zinke’s 2010 environmentalist alter-ego will return after his confirmation hearings, but don’t bet on it.

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate