• TORFdot0@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    4 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

  • 0ops@lemm.eeEnglish
    3·
    4 hours ago

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

  • Günther Unlustig 🍄@slrpnk.netEnglish
    2·
    4 hours ago

    Does this count too?

    I already posted this on !balconygardening@slrpnk.net. .

    I’m purposefully growing duckweed on my balcony.
    I’m doing !hydroponics@slrpnk.net, and by doing that, I have lots of waste water with still good fertilizer in it.

    Duckweed is one of the fastest growing, nutrient densest and least demanding plant out there, and you can just scoop it out with a strainer.

    It’s exponentially growing and if you don’t wanna eat it, it makes great organic fertiliser or animal feed with lots of protein and micronutients!

  • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.caEnglish
    55·
    10 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
      121·
      8 hours ago

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

      Also learned a new term: kneejerk cynicism

    • FarceOfWill@infosec.pubEnglish
      1·
      8 hours ago

      It provides fertilizer but needs “some food”.

      How much food and what is it?

      Typically for aquariums you have to feed these things fertilizer so it seems odd

  • Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    9 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·
        3 hours ago

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

    • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      8 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
        11·
        7 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

  • Allero@lemmy.todayEnglish
    33·
    10 hours ago

    1. Wrong community, maybe? Lol

    2. iirc, algae are better oxygen producers per units of mass and volume, so a tank full of algae might actually be better than a tree. One issue though is that trees can grow on open ground, while algae require a tank to be built, most likely negating the economic benefits. Also, trees are more aesthetically pleasing.

    • superkret@feddit.orgEnglish
      221·
      11 hours ago

      I love this about lemmy.
      Like someone stumbling into the wrong house and still being welcomed.
      It’s a lot more informal and relaxed than on the piss page of the Internet.

  • 𝕿𝖊𝖗 𝕸𝖆𝖝𝖎𝖒𝖆@programming.devEnglish
    91·
    9 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
      7·
      8 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

  • 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    20·
    11 hours ago

    Practical answer, fits in places trees may not. Pessimistic answer, fits in some guys cyberpunk ass vision for what he wants his office block to look like.

      • jagged_circle@feddit.nlEnglish
        2·
        4 hours ago

        This technique is controversial because there is limited understanding of its complete effects on the marine ecosystem,[5] including side effects and possibly large deviations from expected behavior. Such effects potentially include release of nitrogen oxides,[6] and disruption of the ocean’s nutrient balance.[1] Controversy remains over the effectiveness of atmospheric CO2 sequestration and ecological effects.

        Geoengineering is bullshit proposed by funding from fossil fuel companies so they can continue to pollute.

        The solution is simple: make it illegal to pollute. Fine the companies responsible for their past contributions to the climate catastrophe out of existence.