• ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Not all do. That’s an oak thing really. Pines, most stone fruits, etc, take a path of least resistance, unlike oaks which are more “I am going that way, and NOTHING will stop me!”

  • VampirePenguin@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

      • AlolanYoda@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        They emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and oxygen, which causes rust in metals and aging in humans. So it’s a negative really…

  • matlag@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    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.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

      • AlolanYoda@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah, can plant a tree? Plant a tree. If you can’t, the alternative right now is nothing. This introduces another option.

    • ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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.

  • Sunflier@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    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.

  • The_Caretaker@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    12 hours ago

    You see, trees get in the way when we want to put down more asphalt to make more room for cars. We need more lanes for cars to park in and more parking lots for cars to park in. The goal is to turn the city into a place devoid of anything but asphalt. Then with no access to dirt to grow food or water to keep them alive, the people will be 100% dependent on their capitalist overlords. Everyone wins.

  • Captain Howdy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    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.

    • smeenz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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.

      • HATEFISH@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

        • smeenz@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Yes. Even a 50mm (2 inches) tree trunk will usually win against a car on urban roads.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      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.

    • Kekzkrieger@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      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.

    • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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.

  • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I would support legislation that mandated these be used around the highest carbon emitting facilities. Maybe a few very well designed structures (algae tanks) in very densely populated cities.

    These would be in no way a replacement for trees in a community but, I could see forcing the corporations to use them. Such as those that must pollute because, they can not manufacture these products without polluting.

  • CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    20 hours ago

    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.

    • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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.

      • nickiwest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        13 hours ago

        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.

  • Charlxmagne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    14 hours ago

    All these braindead silicon valley tech bros trynna reinvent existing solutions to problems in very expensive and unnecessary ways, marketing it as “revolutionary” and “groundbreaking”

    • BussyCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      The majority of our oxygen comes from algae, they aren’t reinventing existing solutions they just put a tank of them in a city and blow air into it so that a city can use the same more efficient fauna flora that is available in coastal cities

  • MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    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.

    • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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.

        • Lord Wiggle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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!

    • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Leaves are annoying in urban areas with full concrete/asphalt/metal/glass environments. Different people like different things and some aesthetics are incompatible.