I had a poll yesterday for the Greenfield Senate campaign trying out new messaging. One was about climate change and how Greenfield is going to take on "corporate polluters" to protect and expand our environmental protections.

Let's look at how Iowa City's Climate Action plan is going - just about one year into the self-declared Climate Emergency.

Part of the plan was to lease 19 acres of land to MidAmerican energy to build 10,000 solar panels - enough to power 580 typical homes, or about 2% of all homes in Iowa City. The 19 acres would be located inside a 200 acre park and the would be next to an interstate highway.

The park contains restored prairie. Some of the prairie would be replanted near the panels after they were installed but a gravel service road would remain. Following public comment opposed to the project and opposition by the Sierra Club, the city voted down the plan.

Who were the "corporate polluters?" They were the Sierra Club and "environmentally concerned residents."

The city planned to replant and restore 85.9 acres of prairie in 18 parks across the city. Many of the areas that would become prairie plantings are currently turf that is rarely used. Local residents opposed the conversion and so the city scaled it back to 57.3 acres.

Who were the "corporate polluters?" People who lived near and used the parks. People who almost certainly self-describe as liberal or Democrat.

Who said God doesn't have a sense of humor? They vetoed a solar plan to save 19 acres of prairie and within a month scaled back their prairie planting plan 28.6 acres. Note that the environmentally concerned residents and Sierra Club weren't vocal about the 28.6 acre reduction.

The City passed a bike master plan to make it easier and safer to bike. Two bike lanes would displace parking and require residents to walk 1+ blocks. Landlords, residents, members of a historic AME church were opposed. The city scaled back the bike lane plan to save parking.

Who were the "corporate polluters?" College students, landlords, and an AME congregation.

A 15 story tall building was built in downtown Iowa City a few years ago. It has condos, a hotel, coffee shop, bowling alley, and movie theater in it. This building was opposed for years - including a 3 year legal battle - by an organization called Coalition Against the Shadow.

Who opposed this project to bring housing, entertainment, and office space to downtown Iowa City? Environmentally concerned, self-described liberal/progressive residents.

We are currently in a several year protracted battle over whether a set of similarly tall buildings should be built 2 blocks off UI campus for student housing. Residents are fighting the buildings for being too tall and too out of character (as well as "luxury apartments").

Meanwhile, Iowa City approved "The Quarters," a large student housing complex 3.2 miles off campus (that actually displaced low income people) that requires a private bus to function without a hitch. (Latitude is the same story but in Coralville).

They are also preparing to approve a development of 36.58 acres to have 60 single-family homes (0.6 acre lots, on average) in an area close to a large employer (ACT) and 2.5 miles from the University.

Meanwhile, the city is considering revamping the bus service. Good idea - the hour long headways are not really ideal on most routes. The proposed alternative decreases headways (by 50%) but cuts half the routes.

The issue is the city wants to reduce headways (good) but not to increase costs. I understand not wanting to increase costs but you cannot increase service quality without doing so. Who is the evil corporate polluter here? The city (and its taxpayers).

Every week a story like this happens somewhere in a progressive city. There is a liberal blindspot to how WE, not vague, amorphous "corporate polluters," contribute to climate change. Liberal people stop climate action under the banner of environmentalism.

Yes, we need to deal with ag runoff (a major issue in Iowa). Yes, we need to deal with large scale point source emissions. But that is not enough and certainly is not fast enough.

Climate action requires us to change: to stop exurban development, to build the missing middle, to build bikeable and walkable communities, to have density where density belongs, to have solar arrays that disrupt prairie and need to plant prairie elsewhere.

But the message I'm seeing, through our actions and through the campaigns, is "we need to have climate action - but only if it exclusively comes from vague, amorphous, corporate polluters and not me."

All I can take away from that is you aren't actually serious about climate action but, like the Sierra Club, you are happy to pretend like it when it meets you otherwise existing wants and needs. /rant (I'm feeling a bit like @city_of_iowa with the length of this thing).