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.
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 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.
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
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.
Also, trees are surprisingly difficult to keep alive if they were artificially introduced to a location. Turns out they don’t thrive in a concrete hellscape super well.
Which is why native species are always recommended
There are places with no native trees. A majority of the earth’s land area is naturally treeless.
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 listen to it on apple podcasts if that helps
How, if I can’t find out which podcast it is?
You can click the spotify link and it literally tells you what it is
I already said thatspotify doesn’t work on my phone (the homepage crashes)
It’s an episode of “The Climate Denier’s Playbook” entitled “Let’s Just Plant a Trillion Trees.”
Much obliged.
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
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.
And ameliorating the heat island effect.
But mainly quality of life.
You can’t charge a subscription fee for trees.
That’s where youre wrong.
What you can do is take all the trees and put them in a tree museum and charge the people a dollar and a half to see them.
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.
even your trees will be slop. nice.
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.
Deja Vu
What happens when one of these breaks and drains into the sewer system? Algae blooms cause noxious odors and would proliferate quickly in the nitrogen-rich environment of human waste water, potentially building up as clogs in the sewer lines. And if the system drains into a natural body of water, the algae can have devastating toxic effects on the natural wildlife. If it doesn’t drain and instead gets recycled, then the water treatment process becomes much more difficult and expensive.
Trees take ages to grow, and their root systems damage buildings and pavements.
You can take trees and replant them in the city, you don’t have to grow it there. There are tree farms.
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.
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.
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.
also moisture retention, windbraking.
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
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.
im guessing “where will the animals go” is also a stupid question?
Also, where do I find the shade?
Exactly what I love about the Seattle tree coverage. So much shade.
Shade from what? Yall don’t even have the sun, lol
It’s one of Seattle’s best kept secrets that our 3 months of summer has very little rain and highs in the 70-80’s. Perfect weather.
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.
You will shelter next to the goo tank and you will like it.
Only until a person who is unhoused tries it and they decide to install spikes all the way around.
Liquid thorn trees!
Under the actual tree next to it. This is effectively just a large bench. Which also helps the air.
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.
I would guess into the tree soup.
Can we please, stop reposting this same shit pic for the last, I dunno, year?
This is the gazillionth time. I get it. Is a stupid algea tank. where a simple tree does the same for a fraction of the cost. It’s of no use in the public space except as a tech demo or art object.
So. Yeah… Next?
This is only the second time I’ve seen it, but please… there was a time when complaining about reposts was the most often repeated thing I saw on reddit. Can we not have that bit of irony become a thing here?
trees are not as profitable
Can’t they just put the algae in the ocean?
If we put the algae in the oceans, then sink all of our cities underwater, all of our problems will be solved.
There are algae in the ocean. The problem with ocean algae is not that they aren’t there, but that their requirements (sunlight, oxygen, acidity, temperature, etc.) prevent them from expanding any further.
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”
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
faunaflora that is available in coastal citiesI believe algae are flora, not fauna
You are absolutely correct and that was a stupid on my part
Mistakes aren’t stupid, they are human. Hell we are even making our AI in our own image now…
