• TORFdot0@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    7 hours ago

    I think it’s probably cheaper in the long run to self host a tree instead, unless you live in an apartment with absolutely no green space. But I’d rather get a VPF and host a tree there if I had too

  • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.caEnglish
    36·
    13 hours ago

    I had the same reaction until I read this.

    TL;DR: it’s 10-50x more efficient at cleaning the air and actually generates both electricity and fertiliser.

    Yes, it would be better to just get rid of all the cars generating the pollution in the first place and putting in some more trees, but there are clear advantages to this.

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.orgEnglish
      71·
      12 hours ago

      I appreciate Rebecca Watson’s opinion. Watched the 6min video, now convinced 👍

      Also learned a new term: kneejerk cynicism

  • 0ops@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    7 hours ago

    It’s not an either/or thing, the tank in the picture is literally sitting under a tree

  • Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.worldEnglish
    16·
    12 hours ago

    Short answer: the bank won’t give your shiny new tree-planting business a loan as easily as it will to a “liquid tank tree replacement” one.

    Long answer:

    • Trees take time to grow
    • Trees need to be planted
    • Trees make shade
    • Animals like birds and insects like bees and mosquitos like to live next to them
    • Trees don’t need electricity
    • Trees take in heat radiated from the pavement
    • Trees don’t look cool

    While algae are more efficient at turning CO2 into oxygen in theory, in practice algae don’t have a good climate in such a tank (no oxygen without ventilation, i.e. constant electricity and they get cooked through the glass).

    All in all, more of a gimmick than anything.

      • eskimofry@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        6 hours ago

        was about to furiously reply with the same retort… but yeah. I LOVE green spaces

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      6·
      11 hours ago

      Aren’t like half of those bullet points positives? Also in addition to what you said once you got a tree you got a tree, those tanks need constant maintenence and cycling which I doubt anyone is going to bother with for more than a year after installing them.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        11 hours ago

        The comment you replying to was trying to not so subtly point out this is a business plot and little else. Nobody is going to pay a subscription fee to have a tree in front of their business, but they might cough up money for a third party to maintain a tank of algae out front if it was sold right

  • 𝕿𝖊𝖗 𝕸𝖆𝖝𝖎𝖒𝖆@programming.devEnglish
    51·
    12 hours ago

    I don’t think anything’s wrong with trees, but maybe we could also have some of these as well as trees ?

    Replace the advertisements on bus stops with a really cool green liquid wall 😮 (but they’d have to make the glass super thick, these things tend to be vandalized from time to time)

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.orgEnglish
      6·
      11 hours ago

      I don’t think anything’s wrong with trees, but maybe we could also have some of these as well as trees ?

      First of all nobody is proposing to replace existing trees with that, that would be silly! AFAIU the people who created this also don’t want these to be used where trees could be planted. They are outspokenly designed for already densely packed cities that are already highly polluted and hostile to trees, to start turning things around. Rebecca Watson’s 6min take

  • otacon239@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    17 hours ago

    A big problem with trees is roots, especially in cities with dense underground infrastructure. If there’s an actual way to produce the same amount of oxygen as a tree in a smaller space, I’m all for it. I’m honestly okay with how these look, assuming low maintenance.