• bratorange@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    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)

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 hours ago

        To be fair, I think it’s important to make a distinction between a city park, and a handful of trees lining a busy street.

      • BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        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.

        • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I wish my garden was big enough for trees. There are quite a few trees in a park behind our house though, my wifi might just about reach the park too. A better access point would reach it easily.

          Have wondered if there might be other options for shade. Perhaps some kind of vines on a trellis. But then sometimes you don’t want the shade.

          • protist@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I think it’s because they mentioned trees improve air quality right there in their comment, and then you responded like you didn’t read it

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 hours ago

        CO² isn’t want you should be concerned about with air in a city anyway, its the other emissions like particulates. Just being further away from busy roads reduces that significantly so the park air would be better.

      • Micromot@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        It is, because of the humidity, temperature and also they remove air pollution. Just not CO2