- cross-posted to:
- selfhosted@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- selfhosted@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
I guess the “problem” with trees is obvious: it takes decades for them to produce the desired cooling effect in urban areas. You plant a dozen young trees today, you can begin to reap the cooldown 10 years later at best. Also, they need a lot if water, and many of them just don’t make it - urban surroundings are just much hotter and more stressful (smog, salt…) then standing with other trees in a forest. I fail to see though how these artificial “trees” provide any kind of benefit at all.
This is missing out on likely the most important part of trees in urban areas. Shade. They give you a cooler place to stand or walk through.
No standing or sitting allowed. Resume consumerism!
I recently learned that there’s a group dedicated to planting 1000 trees in the city of Trenton, NJ, USA. I’m really glad to see a city working to bring back a little nature!
In Vienna, Austria, Europe, every tree removed has to be replaced with a new as per regulation
trees take a loooooong time to grow
Upkeep costs. Oh, wait.
This just makes me think it’s an aquarium that needs to be cleaned.
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?)
Sounds like we need to remove the need for sidewalks. Rip up all the roads in the city and replace them with green space. Problem solved
I disagree. Pavement is valuable to pedestrians, cyclists, emergency and service vehicles, and the disabled. While it’s important to preserve nature as much as possible, some urbanisation is also a good thing. That said, I’m not sure algae tanks would be necessary in areas where huge tracts of land aren’t dedicated to parking. I can’t really think of where my city would benefit from them.
Yes to ripping up roads for greenspace, not to removing sidewalks too.
Make the citu green and walkable, and you solve so many problems in one go
My first thought, having lived in an area with trees but inadequate funding for clearing leaves, is that every sidewall just gets buried and slick with wet leaves.
Idk what the labour costs are for these things.
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.
I should have mentioned this but usually stuff like this is planted in front of people’s houses etc. I wouldn’t expect a pine tree planted in one of those. Same with a palm tree.
I’m from Pittsburgh and there’s a lot of greenery projects and ecological restoration currently going on. Outside of the city, it’s very heavily wooded. But it’s slow progress.
Those giant algae tanks miss the large point of trees and their physical benefits and do feel like a tech bro solution looking for a problem.
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?
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.
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.
I think there is a difference between air quality (pollution) and co2 levels.
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.
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.
Amazing answer, thanks a lot!
Dunno what i’m getting downvotes for
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
It is, because of the humidity, temperature and also they remove air pollution. Just not CO2
We can have both trees and this ! Let’s replace the stupid ad spots on bus stops with these 😮
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 seem to be focusing on CO2. Trees in cities are going to capture a negligible amount of CO2 and for relatively high cost versus doing things outside a city. The point of trees in cities is shade and looking nice (good for mental health). Liquid trees solve neither of those.
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?
I guess it would take a lot of time to accommodate Mars for trees. More than for algae ;)
Your just thinking outside the box!
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.
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.
They get in the way of parking spots. The steel cages must rule supreme.
The steel cages must rule supreme.
Just ask The Undertaker and Mankind…
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
