You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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)
From the top of my head, they also help manage storm water by filtering rainwater into the aquifer, while also lowering flood risks, provides habitats for plants, insects, birds, and small animals while also being a natural sound barriers, which reduces noise pollution. All of these together greatly increase mental health for everyone too
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.
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
I think there is a difference between air quality (pollution) and co2 levels.
Cool they you think they but there are not walls that prevent air from mixing.
I mean conceptually, not physically like between a park area and a road.
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.
It is, because of the humidity, temperature and also they remove air pollution. Just not CO2
Probably not a statistically significant difference since wind is a thing.
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!
My condo complex is easily 5 degrees cooler than the rest of my city cause we’re covered in trees. It’s always noticeable when you leave the complex and go across the road
taller buildings and smog do a more consistent job of providing shade than a new tree will in a decade.
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?
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
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
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.
The amount of water required is trivial compared to most other water uses. Especially if correct species are selected.
The London plane tree is particularly suitable for urban areas, it’s resistant to air pollution.
True, but unfortunately, this species is way over-planted in many cities. I would not recommend them unless they happen to be uncommon in your local area. Urban forests need to be as diverse as possible to resist the constant barrage of pests and diseases being introduced by global trade.
In California we have a relatively new pest called shot-hole borers which are killing off many of the London planes, so we’re scrambling to plant other species that can resist them.
Also, resistance to air pollution isn’t as crucial as it once was due to better emissions technologies.
Also, resistance to air pollution isn’t as crucial as it once was due to better emissions technologies.
Tell that to the recently defunded EPA…
In Vienna, we actually import Australian species because of their strong resistance to heat. The very commonly used native buckeye trees have been eaten away at by pests for decades now, and I’m surprised they do not actually seem to die off, but they just stand there with brown leaves for most of the year.
I think the problem is putting them in those dumb tanks where a tree would be, as if to say “do this instead”. The principle would be fine if they got a bit more creative with it and played to its strengths, e.g. if you make a train platform out of it, or the railings of an overpass, or the external wall panels of buildings etc.
Ofc OOP didn’t actually provide a source so we’ve no idea what the creators were actually thinking…
A cursory search for “liquid trees micro algae” led me here: https://liquidtrees.org/urban-solutions
Thanks for that. It looks from that like a relevant detail OOP missed out is that these thing (purportedly) claim to produce as much oxygen as 15 trees, which isn’t nothing.
The roots destroy sewer systems etc too. There’s a bike path I take to work where the pavement is all distorted by the roots, making it very unsafe, but I still prefer that the trees are there.
That’s why you have to properly select the species that will be planted, there are many different species which have roots that won’t cause this type of damage and you can most likely get by with native plants for better adaptability
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.
We can have both trees and this ! Let’s replace the stupid ad spots on bus stops with these 😮
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.
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.
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.
I’m sure they’re probably a good idea, I’m just crabby.
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 city green and walkable, and you solve so many problems in one go
If cities where walkable they wouldn’t be sprawling masses that they are.
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.
fuck sidewalks, tree roots can fuck up entire buildings
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.
Not all tree species destroy sidewalks.
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
The problem even with that is that an old, standing tree and a young one are very different in their ability to provide the services we seek from them.
Same in Oslo
In Toronto Canada if you plant trees you get arrested
For real though?
Every tree must be municipally approved, plant one on your own without the city’s consent and without using their services and you will be heavily fined and asked to remove the tree at the very least
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?
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.
