Haters are going to hate. naysayers are gonna naysay. Such negative sentiment. How is planting one billion trees not a good thing? In terms of energy consumption per capita, China is less than one third of the US while Pakistan is less than one tenth of the US [1]. In terms of CO2 emission per capita, China is less than half of the US [2]. You would be happy if China and Pakistan all go dark.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_co...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

I don't see any negative point of view towards the initiative in your comment's parent, but additional information that helps understand the context of this initiative and challenges you should care about if you think this initiative is a good thing.

It also didn't compare China and Pakistan to the US (negatively nor positively), though I appreciate you adding even more context.

> How is planting one billion trees not a good thing?

Yes, exactly.

China is going to build 700 coal plants around the world:

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinese-firms-to-...

Sure, it’s great to celebrate our wins, like planting trees, but unless we examine the big problem those little wins really aren’t going to matter.

I understand that per capita China and India emit less CO2, but China already has double the US output.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...

The world simply can’t handle burning all of that coal. Getting China and India to use nuclear or natural gas would help a lot.

Not only China and India emit much less CO2 per capita, the US has emitted far more CO2 than any other country accumulatively. The US has been industrialized for more than one hundred years and had been the No1 emitter of CO2 for more than a century until very recently. All these CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere has not been cleaned up yet. True we should all use cleaner energy sources. Planting one billion tree is a step towards a greener environment.

It depends on the species of trees. Some are very good, other not so. In concept the idea sounds smart and positive for everybody. We need more smart people, so I hope they succeed.

Coal Power plants with trees are better than just coal power plants.

Pakistan can build nuclear reactors instead. They have the technology.

They are in process. According to Wikipedia[0] "Pakistan plans on constructing 32 nuclear power plants by 2050"

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Pakistan

Or they could have all three: coal-fired power plants, trees, and nuclear reactors.

Granted, in the long run coal is neither a healthy, environmentally friendly or sustainable option but in the short term it may be one of the few viable options.

Not really, not necessarily.

Pakistan can build the bomb, and the reactors for high grade Pu. That doesn't mean they can make a thermal reactor which has many different and difficult challenges. The metallurgy to make a high pressure reactor vessel for 500 MW is quite different from making a quickly refueled open pool reactor.

In fact, most western countries' reactor designs are derived from US licenses.

They've had nuclear powered electricity since 1972 and have 1.3 GW plants operating commercially.

Two additional plants at 1.1 GW each slated to add to the grid by 2021/2.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro...

Yeah, but they build nukes instead.

Even if they didn't have the technology, what stops them from hiring a company from another country that has such technology?

Pakistan can't hire anyone to build reactors or buy most of parts needed because they are not willing to sign NPT, unless they become part of NSG. So, they are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. They know fresh water resources are not unlimited for sub-continent and coal is worst possible solution for electric short fall. So, they are also working on Solar [1] and wind [2], along with some development on nuclear which is indeed very slow.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaid-e-Azam_Solar_Park

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jhimpir_Wind_Power_Plant

Edit:correction.

I suspect that will be a very unpopular opinion around here.

I don't see why. Nuclear reactors are objectively far less damaging than coal plants, even if you ignore global warming, and include Chernobyl (no containment dome) and Fukushima (70's-era plant plus tsunami). As far as proliferation goes, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.

Popularity is not about facts.

When someone says "nuclear" many unthinking people with votes think "That's bad they could blow me up or polute all the things" and then shut off their brain to rational responses.

Because they have votes the politicians "Here" take action. If "Here" is Pakistan that means fewer plants in this case. If "Here" is the USA it means strained relations with Pakistan and perhaps even some public condemnation and minor sanctions.

HN loves nuclear power.

Or is this a comment about subcontinental international politics?

everyobe is very excited about nuclear energy as long as the plant is on the other side of the continent.