- cross-posted to:
- selfhosted@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- selfhosted@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
A few reasons: Trees need a lot of space and the space underneath a sidewalk isn’t enough for long term life. They can die after like 30 years? This is tree dependent and location dependent.
Tree roots can destroy sidewalks making it harder for people to go over them. (Think people in wheel chairs)
Liability in terms of damage (have you seen trees after a storm?)
Still and this is the big thing, these are all possible considerations, plenty of urban areas, once they reduce street traffic to what is seen in European and other areas could also vastly greenify areas via mini parks allowing root space (and tbh if it messes with a sidewalk well then fix it like what functional societies with infrastructure budgets doi). All in all this just gives off techbro “genius solution” grifting and likely isn’t even possible on a large scale given I swear I’ve seen this same tumblr reblog before and yet areas that are hard on trees (Like LA) still has a crap ton of palms and other trees not even remotely habitable to the climate.
Like I always think that people don’t get one thing about trees in a city. There purpose is is not about co2. The co2 reduction of city trees is neglectable. The reason you need them in a city is temperature regulation, shade, air quality, mood, the local eco system and maybe solidifying unsealed ground. Putting these tanks in a city is laughably inefficient w.r.t. co2 conversion if you compare this to any effort to do this in instustrial capacity ( which is is also still laughably inefficient)
So… are you saying the air inside a city park isn’t better at all?
They were talking about CO2 which is what the algae tank is about.
Trees have other benefits around filtering pollutants that affect air quality such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. Also the shading effect reduces ozone accumulation as well as generally helping reduce the urban heat island effect (which in turn reduces the amount of air conditioning needed, even a small amount saves energy and reduces pollution from power stations).
City parks have clean air partly because of tree but also because youre away from roads and buildings so further from car exhausts and chimney stacks. The concentration of pollutants in wide open spaces is lower because the wind can move it around more easily, and there isn’t a pollution source directly near by. Tree and grass do help too.
By far the most effective way of reducing pollution is reducing the sources. Trees are CO2 sinks and would reduce some CO2 if there was massive reforestation globally but that is outweighed by the ongoing CO2 production. The best solution is clean energy sources and getting rid of combustion engines.
It is, because of the humidity, temperature and also they remove air pollution. Just not CO2
I guess it would take a lot of time to accommodate Mars for trees. More than for algae ;)
We can have both trees and this ! Let’s replace the stupid ad spots on bus stops with these 😮
Less infrastructure erosion from roots? Integration into places like above ground parking spaces? Hell could you imagine integrating them into bridge underpasses or walk ways? Heck make a semi destructible version and use that for crash bollards. Only a level 5 vegan is going to complain if some allege is spilt.
While I don’t want to spoil the joke (but I will) and I hate techno-optimist solutions that displace actual solutions for our biosphere as much as the next person: supposedly, Belgrade is such a dense concrete hell that trees aren’t viable solution (at least in the short term).
There is some rumbling that liquid trees are not the solution to the real problems caused by large-scale deforestation, nor does it reduce erosion or enrich the soil. However, much of this wrath is misplaced as Liquid tree designers say that it was not made as a replacement for trees but was designed to work in areas where growing trees would be non-viable. Initiatives like Trillion Trees are laudable, but there is something to be said for the true utility of this tiny bioreactor. The fact that they can capture useful amounts of carbon dioxide from day one is another benefit for them. Such bioreactors are expected to become widespread in urban areas around the world as the planet battles rising carbon levels in the atmosphere.
They can thrive in tap water and can withstand temperature extremes.
So maybe they can be used in regions that are too hot for trees, like desert cities
And for people who think that the trillion tree idea is anything else than just the oil lobby running with a feel good solution, I have a great podcast episode for you
Spotify doesn’t work on my phone. Care to link the podcast page on a platform not trying to corner the market, please?
im guessing “where will the animals go” is also a stupid question?
I would guess into the tree soup.
Also, where do I find the shade?
You will shelter next to the goo tank and you will like it.
Exactly what I love about the Seattle tree coverage. So much shade.
That’s the other thing….how much hotter would this make cities?
Tree lined roads are a lot cooler than roads that aren’t tree lined. They’re also cooler.
But you can for oxygen. Total Recall taught us this.
You mean Space Balls?
Perri-air.
It even came in the old fashioned steel cans.
They get in the way of parking spots. The steel cages must rule supreme.
These have to take up more space than a tree…
I think the idea behind this is that algae are more space-efficient than trees at producing oxygen and/or capturing CO2. Of course this is also ignoring that the bulk of a tree’s volume is high above the ground, and they also provide other things like shade and shelter for insects etc.
When this was proposed the idea was that one of tank can replace two trees and it can be put in corners that are too small for trees (and cars). When you consider the space for roots you can get at least one parking space per tank at the cost of making car-centric cities even more of an hell hole.
Ok I can see that space wise. Have fun having an enormous concrete oven though
Real answer is probably that they’d be used in addition to trees, designed to fit in places unsuitable for a tree.
This. Trees (especially large ones) are a pain to irrigate properly, might not be drought-resistant, grow very slowly until they reach their full potential at removing CO2, interfere with infrastructure that we humans are used to (piping, electricity, telco), roots break up pavements, branches can be a hazard after storms, fruit might attract rats, …
I’m very much pro trees (despite what I’ve listed in the first paragraph), but I’m sure there are places in cities where you can’t plant trees but could put up algae tanks.
If you understand German (specifically Austrian dialect) you might like this podcast episode about challenges and methods to overcome them in the context of greenery in the city of Graz:
Simple Smart Buildings: Bäume in der Stadt
Webseite der Episode: https://podcasted3e6b.podigee.io/153-baume-in-der-stadt
Mediendatei: https://audio.podigee-cdn.net/1742586-m-9ecab280e580cd07f75c83ed9379b970.mp3?source=feed
TL;DL of this episode: it’s not as simple as “just plant more trees”.
Yes. Algae is better in absorbing co2 than tree, but tree is important as a shade and creating a cooling effect for the surrounding. Both is important for different thing and combine it you get the best of both world, especially in a lot of urban area where planting big tree isn’t possible
Like walls of high-rises.
Insert random copypasta about biotech breakthrough that turns water and CO2 and nutrients into sustainable building materials which sounds like space age technology but it’s just trees
Has the manufacturer even calculated how much energy is needed for production and how long it will take for the corresponding CO2 emissions to be amortized?
We are living in strange times…
And trees that are planted in cities are not seeded. They are grown in a forestry until they reach a certain height. And then dug up with machines transported with machines and then planted with machines. The CO2 produced to plant a single tree also takes quite a while to be absorbed by that tree.
Who cares? You can sell these tanks for a better profit than trees.
trees are not as profitable
You can’t charge a subscription fee for trees.
What you can do is take all the trees and put them in a tree museum and charge the people a dollar and a half to see them.
That’s where youre wrong.
Trees arent liquid
Can’t they just put the algae in the ocean?
If we put the algae in the oceans, then sink all of our cities underwater, all of our problems will be solved.
