ITT: People who looked at some random headline, didn’t bother looking further and assumed they knew everything.
It’s a stupid headline. These tanks, are to directly affect air polution/quality in urban areas. Trees are terrible at that. The microalgae is 10-50x more effective in cleaning the air.
They aren’t going to rip out trees for these. It would have taken you 10 seconds to find the source of the image and the article from 3 years ago to find out, the social media post was misleading. You spent more time making incorrect and wild accusations.
Even with the misleading headline, has nobody commenting about how bad it is ever seen how many trees die when set up in low light conditions? These can be used in places trees wouldn’t be effective, and that’s before the whole “they’re better at cleaning the air” bit.
Even with ideal light conditions, there’s still more to consider.
I lived in Louisville for many years. It’s fairly green as cities go. In older parts of the city, trees had been planted between the streets and sidewalks … definitely a long time ago, maybe 30 to 50 years? Maybe longer?
Every spring, we lost a number of those trees to thunderstorms. Enough rain, followed by strong winds, would topple multiple trees. Every single one that I saw had a root ball that was exactly the size of the opening where it had been planted, so maybe two square meters and maybe a meter or two deep. (For those keeping score at home, that’s not enough root volume to support a full-sized tree.)
So we’d lose those lovely trees and on a good day, we’d lose the use of the street for a while. On a bad day, someone would lose a car or a chunk of their house.
“Just plant more trees in the middle of the city” is not the brilliant fix that many people seem to think it is.
Wake me up as soon as some goofy ass startup found out how to arrange the algae to display ads.
Add a blockchain and you could get libertarians tripping over to invest
I discovered when I joined a volunteer litter-picking group in my town that some people really hate trees. And I must emphasise HATE. They hate the shade they cast in summer, the way the leaves block the all-important View. They hate the fallen leaves in autumn. They hate the bare branches in winter. They hate the risk of branches falling in storms. They hate the racket the birds make. I was astonished - it never occurred to me that people would feel so strongly.
Turns out I’m a bloody tree-hugging extremist.
That’s just unhinged. The trees are the view.
Those “people” would better serve as fertilizer (specifically for trees)
Yeah trees are assholes. They always ring my doorbell trying to sell me the book of Gaia. Constantly telling me “you can’t smoke here, sir”. There’s a tree behind my house who constantly wears the same glasses as me. Whenever I buy new ones, a day later this tree has the same. He’s constantly mocking me for no reason.
I think all trees should be cut down and burned. Algae never complain, are always kind and always say “good day sir” when you walk by.
A tree stole my wallet and had sex with my wife!
So many trees have destroyed people their houses with stupid forest fires. Have you ever heard of algae fires? No! Because algae aren’t assholes!
I guess I’m too…born and raised in a forest?..to be the same species as those people.
Leaves are annoying in urban areas with full concrete/asphalt/metal/glass environments. Different people like different things and some aesthetics are incompatible.
annoying how?
let me introduce you to this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robo-bees-could-aid-insects-with-pollination-duties/
humans are crazy. You want to know whats wrong with trees and bees? It’s pretty hard to make a profit of them
The issue with trees is you need to adapt the city to them, you can’t adapt them to the city. And people have proven once and again that they would invent anything to not move by an inch when our way of life is put in question.
So we push forward with absurd solutions one after the other: carbon capture, atmospheric geo-engineering, a damned nuke in antarctica, and now “liquid trees”.
Because the alternative is to change our ways, and we can’t face that.
I would be fine with changing my ways if changing my anything didn’t require endless paperwork. How is it fair that some guy invents agriculture and now I have to have a credit score
That’s an incredibly negative spin.
All these technologies are improvements on the natural version, not a replacement for the natural version, but an upgrade. If you want nice trees go take a walk in a city park, these aren’t for looking at they have a different objective. We can have both things, one isn’t trying to replace the other.
Trees provide shades that cool down the cities. These algae don’t. The main benefit of these “liquid trees” is to reduce pollution. You know what reduces even more pollution? Electrification and public transportation. Combine both. You’ll need much less space for motor vehicles lane inside the city and no need for “depolluting” inventions. Add some bike lanes and you’ll still have plenty of space for trees. They’re better looking and will do the cooling job.
So, as I was saying: praising a less efficient solution that may bring new unexpected issues down the road because the efficient solution requires people to change.
Yeah, can plant a tree? Plant a tree. If you can’t, the alternative right now is nothing. This introduces another option.
trees take don’t come with actual requirement lists. An algae pool can and will come with explicit instructions that are able to be met and won’t destroy the sidewalk for no reason.
Welp, all the trees are gone but at least there are these cloudy stinking tanks of goo everywhere. Does anything not dystopian happen anymore? Like these things are a set piece from Blade Runner FFS.
It’s a pretty bad example in this case because the picture is literally on a street with trees. What these are probably for is putting in places where no one’s going to look at them but places where you can’t put trees, like industrial estates and the rooftops of buildings. Aesthetics aren’t important if no one is ever going to look at them aesthetically, and anyway they kind of look cool.
I’m sure they’re probably a good idea, I’m just crabby.
The issue is that the roof is smaller than the bench, so it doesn’t even provide shade.
Like I said though that isn’t what they’re for. They’re not going to replace trees they’re just going to augment their CO2 absorption.
If it’s actually more efficient then trees, could be a good idea. Saw a 51/49 video where he explained the urban development in the US requiring only male trees be planted leads to increased pollen levels and has made the “allergy season” 30+ days longer over the past 50 years or so.
I still want the trees outdoors, but this would be cool for indoor spaces. Each mall or parking lot could have a solar panel overhead and slime-tanks to produce useful byproducts.
Maybe it could be mixed with and aquaculture like fish and sea plants to create cool scenery
While I would hate to lose actual trees, I’m medium on the idea of this on it’s own. People need lots of things and space, which causes the removal of trees. If we can replicate some of their functions, such as CO2 absorption with this tech, then that seems good. If upkeep is the same as a tree, I don’t see a downside to the overall concept.
My thought would be that this shows up on top of the buildings instead of at ground level, though… Plant real trees and put these on the roof. The real loss would be if we stop making green spaces because these things meet the need for O2. Green spaces in cities do way more than just clean the air, though, so I’m not sure we’re that dystopian yet.
The photo looks like it doubles as a bench too, so maybe that helps justify its footprint. Make them a mini-light show with varied colors and it can become a functional art installation. How long until it has spikes to prevent someone from taking a nap on it, though?
Yeah completely agree, I like trees and don’t want them completely gone or anything.
Trees don’t attract VC funding the way some dumb new invention does.
I guess this could be useful in places trees don’t fit but I think there are other simpler solutions.
useful in places trees don’t fit
I have a tree sitting in a pot on my desk.
Your potted tree isn’t a tree in the sense that I’m talking about. The environmental services trees provide are all based on size and so are predominantly provided by larger trees. Cities usually avoid planting these under electrical wires and in smaller tree basins to avoid damage to infrastructure. So practically, there are many urban locations where big trees won’t fit.
Are you discriminating because lil’ tree is lil’? /s
Depends how you use it
My tree is not small, it’s average sized
How much CO2 does the tree on your desk take in? Do you think it approaches 1/1000 of the amount that a bunch of algae can take in? So maybe it’s not the same and comparing it as being the same is done in bad faith. Trees are great and in many cases are superior as they also provide shade, but you can’t ignore the negatives of them(mostly related to their roots) and that they don’t work in every situation
Does its root structure break the pavement above it?
When I was visiting Europe, seeing all the trees so well integrated into urban areas was so nice.
Then we git our flight back to Toronto. Concrete jungle.
The problem with trees in an urban setting is trees have roots, and these cause issues. The can damage pipes and other underground objects. And many trees that are designed to not have these issues, end up with stunted/damaged roots which severely effects the trees growth. Planting trees in urban settings take quite a lot of pre-planning, and aren’t drop in solutions, and if the areas weren’t originally designed with trees in mind, you are likely to cause more problems than solutions.
https://greenblue.com/gb/avoid-root-heave-pavement-damage-caused-urban-trees/ https://tiptoptreeandgroundcare.co.uk/2025/01/06/tree-roots-in-urban-spaces/
In Australian temperate climate areas we have the brush box whose roots do not cause these problems. Unfortunately evergreen, casting shade in winter.
Few things about trees in cities: (1) tree roots ruin sidewalks because they upend that stuff; (2) tree roots get into and ruin infrastructure, (3) not every curb can sustain a tree, so these could fit where a tree could not; and (4) they damage stuff when they fall over in storms.
Crazy thought - instead of just putting trees near curbs, have dedicated green spaces in cities where there aren’t sidewalks or other important infrastructure near the trees.
Where did you get these ideas you freak
Parks? Gross. I like parking lots.
How about multi level parking garages teeming with algae?
Why not both green spaces (central park anyone?) and these alge pods everywhere else?
I think the current plan is to simply depopulate the United States through fiscal policies and have everyone move back to Europe.
Dumb take. If someone crashes their car into one of these, it can be replaced in a few days. Trees take decades to grow in ideal conditions. Between tall buildings in a city is far from ideal conditions.
Also algae is way more efficient at converting CO2 into O2; I think it’s maybe multiple times more efficient using the same amount of light.
As an emergency responder, I can say with confidence that when a car hits a tree, it’s rare that the car wins. The tree usually just shrugs it off.
I’ve definitely seen “median trees” and “sidewalk trees” here in Atlanta get removed or replaced after a car hits them. But for sure, large trees can easily shrug off a car crash. Those are just not usually in heavily urban areas like these tanks are meant for.
Not that it is super relevant to this discussion, but last month someone with a chainsaw cut down multiple (I wanna say a dozen or so) trees along a street in Atlanta in the middle of the night. Who TF would do that!!! Sad and pointless…
Emergency responder in a big city? Trees will fuck up a car no doubt but not usually the tiny ones lining the streets of major urban centers, most I see get to be maybe 5 in across. But it may all be location dependant.
Yes. Even a 50mm (2 inches) tree trunk will usually win against a car on urban roads.
Dumb take, by the guy who has no idea how much it costs to maintain these tanks or any understanding of the scales involved, all while wanting to live in a world of green goo in tanks instead of one with trees in their cities.
Who said I wouldn’t want to live in a city with trees? I just said that in some areas, these make more sense than trees.
Jeez, get off the Internet for a while. Obviously you’re looking for someone to argue with. I’m not that guy.
Trees take ages to grow, and their root systems damage buildings and pavements.
Also really really hard to keep trees alive on the sides of buildings where these units could conceivably be used. Modular trees plus trees where we can fit them.
But the shade of a tree is far superior and reduces the overall temperature around them if many are planted, so overall much better.
Also certain trees dont need deep roots and can grow without neccessairliy damaging the pavement.
You can take trees and replant them in the city, you don’t have to grow it there. There are tree farms.
Trees don’t create shareholder profits
useless pests they are. who cares that they provide free shade, free oxygen, free beauty for all to enjoy. Fucking commies.
I agree trees are commies. Must be why Trump is going to clear cut several hundred million acres of the last remaining old growth forests …because they’re full of commie trees
deleted by creator
