This Week's 'New York NOW' Poll Question
Is the state now better prepared for a weather emergency? Click here to take survey.
Last Week's Results
Should New York continue burning coal for energy?
Your thoughts on burning coal:
Answer: No "NY is blessed with water and wind power that should be carefully thoughtfully utilized to reduce the need for the dirtiest fossil fuels. NY should increase incentives for commercial and residential installation of solar collectors. Coal and nuclear should only be energy sources of last resort." -Ken S., Schodack
Answer: No "I worked in the Bronx, not all that long ago, when all the public schools and large pre-war apartment buildings burned coal. It was the capitol of asthma, covered with a black cloud, all winter. Never again." -Barb B., Queens
Answer: Yes "The only alternative power source is to harness all the politically correct liberal hot air coming out of our Albany elected officials on the environment." -Larry P., Great Neck
Answer: No "No, coal is dirty, ruins the landscape where it is mined, and pollutes the air even with present-day scrubbers. Tailings and ash pile accidents periodically or continuously contaminate water resources, and the industry is dangerous for workers in the industry, especially miners. In a planned way, coal should be phased out and replaced by interim natural gas. Renewables and and energy storage should be ramped up at the same time to eventually replace natural gas. Next-generation molten salt nuclear reactors should be included in the energy mix as they become available." - Kurt H., Schenectady
Answer: Yes "I am for using gas or coal. without it would cause sky high electric bills.people are sick and tire paying high property taxes when you are in fixed income." -Isael R., Middletown
Answer: Yes "Maybe I'm slow, but I didn't hear your commentators provide an answer to a practical replacement for electric power once coal fired power plants are shut down. The emissions from the power plant smokestacks, repeatedly shown on your cameras, seemed to be water vapor and not pollution emissions. Also, the young spokesman for the Sierra Club should have mentioned that the natural gas industry has funded his organization to the tune of $26,000,000. so he has a major interest in closing down a competitive fuel industry." -William R., Manorville
Answer: No "TheSolutionsProject.org has mapped out how each state can go 100% renewable. The first state they mapped was NY. We can lead the way - but not if we take one step back with every step forward. COAL IS THE WRONG DIRECTION. DUH." -Ellen O., Glen Oaks
Answer: No "Doesn't make economic sense, and contributes to climate change. Both in the short and long-term, this is a bad move." -Katherine P., Arlington, VA
Answer: No "We should be investing in ways that New Yorkers can be energy self-sufficient. It is possible. A program that would allow those in lower income households generate their own power, and so raise living standards, can not happen if New York remains coal-dependent." -Tim M., Gallatin
Answer: Yes "Governor Cuomo banned fracking and must continue the momentum to push New York toward a renewable energy future by stopping coal bailouts. The state is wasting millions of dollars that could be reinvested in a just transition to help coal workers get trained in the clean energy sector." -Michael M., Brooklyn
Answer: No "Addressing climate change is extremely urgent and is my top issue as a voter. I would like to see a massive shift in NY state's energy profile towards renewable energy." -Janet M., Astoria
Answer: No "Coal is a dirty fuel, and the process of extracting it is harmful to the miners and ruins the land and water." -Daniel R., NY
Answer: No "We're not doing ourselves, our planet, or our children's future, any favors by relying on outdated ways to get energy. Everything has been upgraded to modern standards, except this. This needs to change. If we stay stuck with things that are outdated, then we'll look like the foolish, greedy ones, our enemies, complain that we are. Let's not prove them right. Let's not prove that we are ready at a moment's notice to kill, or go to war for oil. Let's look like the leaders, the smart ones, the thinkers, & doers. We're more intimidating, if we do things, not only first, but better. Then have the rest of the world follow us, instead of pointing their rockets at us." -Alina B., Bronx
Answer: No "I'm a volunteer with Sierra Club's downstate legislative lobbying team, and I've met with my state assemblyman on the issue of ending coal in New York State, to encouraging effect. New York State has four remaining coal plants, which are financially insolvent and require state-approved bailouts at rate payers' expense to continue functioning. Burning coal contributes to global warming, and therefore to future disasters of unprecedented scale, and we don't need these coal plants to produce energy. Provided we create an economic transition plan for these plants' communities, there is no defensible reason to bail out these coal plants and keep them running. If New York State were to end its coal industry, and instead invest in solar and offshore wind power, we would set an example for the rest of the country and the world as to how we can solve the problem of climate change through lots of small local changes, rather than waiting for broad sweeping action at the federal level, which at the moment seems nearly impossible, and which would probably result in the same myriad local changes, just mandated by the federal government. Since half the federal government denies that climate change is occurring, or that human activity is causing it, they will only take action once the effects of climate change have become so frequent and devastating that it's too late to ignore, and also too late to prevent mass suffering, mass migration, economic crises, increased competition and warfare over scarcer resources, and just a general worsening of the human experience world over. Instead of waiting for the federal government to save the day, local and state communities need to take lots of small steps simultaneously to decrease our overall greenhouse gas emissions. Since there is so much less money involved at these levels, we have a better shot at proactively saving ourselves than gambling that the president and congress eventually mandate it." -Jacob M., Brooklyn
Answer: Yes "NY should utilize whatever energy options are the cheapest in an all of the above energy policy. The Sierra club and other enviro- special interest groups care only about their agenda to kill all fossil fuels at any cost to the average residents." -Mike, Lockwood
Answer: No "It makes no sense to burn coal in NY State in 2015. The state should close these plants, not repower them. Dealing with the resulting jobs loss and local economic impacts is something the state should allocate funds to. This is likely to be cheaper than bailing out the utilities for the cost of repowering. Closing the plants is the right thing to do to drastically reduce CO2 and other harmful types of pollution that result whenever coal is burned." -Rob S., Highland Park, NJ
Answer: Yes "However, We should be using everything we have, not just 1 type of energy....diversification equals security and stability." -Julia, Corning
Answer: No "New York can be entirely powered by clean, renewable energy by 2030, as detailed in Jacobson wind, water and solar (WWS) study by Stanford and Cornell professors." -Sarah W., Yorktown Heights
Answer: No "It is time to use renewable energy sources! We are endangering future generations by using coal!" -Howard T., NYC
Answer: No "As a child in the Bronx i played in the buildings coal bin. It's filthy fuel, it pollutes the air in NY and all of Southern New England where I now live." -John M., Providence, RI
Disclaimer: This is not a scientific poll. It is not intended to be viewed as representative of general public opinion. Rather, results indicate the opinions of a self-selecting group of online respondents which may or may not be representative of more widespread public opinion.
Check weekly for new question/results.