For more than a decade, political consultants have told candidates to talk about “all of the above energy” policies. It’s not a coherent policy as much as a slogan to keep all interest groups happy. Environmental groups big enough to hire lobbyists get a little something, along with the fossil fuel industry and renewable energy companies. It placates everyone likely to show up at a political fundraiser. The trouble is who gets left out.

In Illinois, “all of the above energy” means turning a blind eye to people who want clean air and water despite living near the mining, drilling and burning of fossil fuels.

Convicted former Governor Rod Blagojevich set the template. His Jekyll and Hyde policies included signing a good law to reduce mercury pollution from coal smokestacks but he also passed out hundreds of millions in subsidies to coal mining. One major bill he signed included incentives for renewable energy along with large subsidies for two new coal power plants. Such bills are always presented with righteous proclamations that they were negotiated with “diverse stakeholders” at the table.

The trouble with these groups of stakeholders is that rural downstate is usually represented by the fossil fuel industry and their crony politicians. The environment is typically represented by big green groups based in Chicago whose donors aren’t focused on what’s happening to low-income people near coal mines and aging power plants.

Over the years I’ve seen Chicago-based green groups agree to a long list of compromises to get clean energy and efficiency incentives, which are the priority of important major donors. That includes agreeing to bills with coal mining and plant subsidies, supporting new coal plants, utility rate hikes, and nuclear power subsidies. “All of the above” included Sierra Club endorsing Pat Quinn for re-election even after he attempted to launch fracking, expanded coal mining, and gave pollution waivers to help several downstate coal plants. Rod Blagojevich was also endorsed by Sierra Club after massively subsidizing coal mining, downstate coal boilers, and wrecking the Department of Natural Resources.

Compromise is not a bad thing. The trouble is that low-income, rural communities and low-income communities of color on the front lines of fossil fuel pollution are so consistently scarified as areas for easy compromise or used as bargaining chips to get a seat at the table.

That’s changing. The movement against fracking in Illinois showed there’s a growing number of people in central and southern Illinois who demand the same clean air and water promised to Chicago area voters. Hundreds of people came out to hearings in towns not known as hotbeds of environmental activism.

Efforts against coal pollution are growing too. Local opposition helped stop several proposed coal plants subsidized by federal stimulus funds. President Obama already tried giving billions to clean coal projects and it was the biggest failure of the federal stimulus. Destructive mining practices and toxic coal ash piles are facing strident local opposition. Grassroots activists are changing Illinois’ political realities.

Pandering to fossil fuel interests isn’t winning elections for Democrats anymore but conventional wisdom dies slow. The West Virginia Democratic Presidential primary is a good example. After facing criticism for saying we’re going to put coal companies “out of business”, Clinton backed off her clean energy message in West Virginia. She publicly apologized to industry stooge Joe Manchin and promised to promote coal mining and clean coal. She lost both sides of the debate by convincing both coal supporters and environmentalists that she wouldn’t be a reliable ally. Bernie Sanders stuck to his message about creating a just transition away from coal and won the West Virginia primary.

Coal Democrats aren’t doing well in Illinois either. Southern Illinois Congressman Bill Enyart co-chaired the Congressional Coal caucus. He still lost re-election while handing a sizable 6% of the vote to a Green Party opponent. State legislators John Bradley and Gary Forby attracted their first serious opponents in years and lost after their outspoken support for fracking. Governor Pat Quinn’s attempt to launch fracking is one reason he lost downstate Illinois in a landslide.

There’s no voting base behind a timid middle ground on fossil fuels. The only people who base their vote on energy issues are the climate movement and people tied to the fossil fuel industry. Republicans are more convincing as puppets of the fossil fuel industry. And, half-hearted support for weak action from Democrats doesn’t convince skeptical climate voters. Politicians who appeal to both sides of the energy debate lose by alienating everyone on all sides.

It’s up to climate voters to demand that candidates pick sides. Election season is time to drag specifics out of candidates running for Governor, Attorney General and other state offices. That’s a challenge for Democratic primary voters.

Democrats are often pushed into supporting fossil fuels by trade unions with members in the fossil fuel industry. The building trades don’t have a large number of members voting in the Democratic primary anymore. But they remain politically powerful through their political funds and organization.

I hope one day more trade unions will embrace the idea that a worker whose family is harmed by deadly pollution or a climate disaster has had their rights violated just as much as someone harmed in a workplace accident. Climate disasters caused by new fossil fuel projects will hurt the homes, lives and families of union members just as much as everyone else. Until that change in attitude happens, the climate movement will sometimes be on the opposite side of unions who push 19th century energy sources.

Most of the more conservative trades have endorsed JB Pritzker for Governor. He left an environmental forum after his opening statement and avoids answering specifics about whether he’ll support new fossil fuel projects. Will he support a new natural gas plant and new oil pipelines being pushed by unions who support him? What did he promise in closed-door endorsement meetings? Beyond that, the Pritzker family and foundations have a history of funding environmental groups who follow the “all of the above” model by promoting renewables, nuclear, and natural gas while overlooking the impacts of fossil fuel extraction.

Pritzker’s endorsements make him suspect but he’s not the only candidate avoiding direct answers. It’s up to activists across the state to stop accepting vague slogans that pander to all sides.

The political establishment whine about litmus tests and single issue voters. Those complaints exist to protect politicians, not the climate. If someone can look at the damage in Puerto Rico and still not find the courage to act boldly on climate change, then they’re not fit for public office.

The climate movement needs to show politicians that fossil fuel industry allies don’t represent Illinois voters. We need to ask candidates, publicly, if they will oppose new fossil fuel plants and infrastructure. Clean energy jobs must be directed to former coal communities to create a just transition. We need elected officials who understand that fracking can’t be made safe by regulation. It’s time to demand candidates stop taking money from the fossil fuel industry, including coal mining company Foresight Energy, which even gave money to a political committee chaired by the regulator in charge of Illinois mines.

No other issue matters if we don’t solve the climate crisis. No one will be exercising a theoretical right to health care or a living wage after a climate disaster destroys their home, workplace, the nearest hospital and the regional food supply. This is the election year the Illinoisans climate movement stops timidly accepting policies that sacrifice parts of our state and worsen the climate crisis.