1. I find it interesting that the cited references for for section 2.1 include two articles from news journals, one paper from a CUNY business college about the damage from Superstorm Sandy, a FEMA article about the cost of this storm and a WMO article regarding worldwide disasters and economic losses. As quoted, “Scientific consensus is represented by the works of notable international, national, and local scientific institutions.” None of the referenced articles is of peer reviewed consensus nor scientifically data driven in conclusion. 
2. The idea that New Yorkers will be forced to utilize electric heat pumps for homes is ridiculous. Our home has been heated this way for 25 years and the winter temperatures make it next to impossible to use. With the amount of snow it becomes sometimes impossible to get to the unit to clear it and our home is never close to feeling warm. 
3. The number of solar panels (which will use numerous metals and materials that can harm the environment) and the wind turbines will demand enormous amounts of land, presents an issue to those who own land, not to mention the environmental impacts of these facilities. 
4. The amount of energy that can be extracted using fossil fuels or nuclear isotopes, though not ideal, are at the moment far more efficient and capable of extraordinarily more energy as opposed to the massive number of devices needed for solar and wind. The development of green energy is a notable and worthy goal, but needs more research regarding storage and generation in order to be cost effective. Until those processes can be honed and readily available at reasonable cost, the burden on taxpayers will be enormous. I refer to this scenario as “the cart before the horse”.
5. I have also been very interested in where advertisements have been to tell residents to go look at this document. We certainly have had more than enough ads telling us to be vaccinated and boosted and to wear masks. Perhaps the funding for the climate information is similarly as important?
6. The document is long and difficult to follow and would be practically impossible for most residents to understand. 
7. I wonder why there are no elected representatives on the Climate Action Council and various committees for this project to have the interest of citizens protected. 
8. The overview of the Climate Act indicates lofty goals such as : a) 100% zero-emissions by 2040 b) 70% renewable energy by 2030. c) 9000 MW from offshore wind by 2035… this requires a building project that would clearly affect the ocean environment not to mention the effect on the bird species in peril… d) the projected number of MW of energy produced and stored makes no sense to lay people and should be described in logical terms such as how many cars can be charged or houses heated. MW units are meaningless. 
9. The value of 185 TBtu of energy savings by 2025 is meaningless for the public. The use of a completely different unit of energy (TBtu vs MW) provides no logical connection to what that actually means.