Liquid Trees

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"

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.

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.
- I guess I'm too...born and raised in a forest?...to be the same species as those people.
- 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.
- That's just unhinged. The trees are the view.
  
  Those "people" would better serve as fertilizer (specifically for trees)

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/

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.
  
  Does its root structure break the pavement above it?

People really like vandalizing trees, diseases exist, and they are less efficient carbon sinks
Like how we found it’s better to feed cattle seaweed than grass but nobody wants to because it’s different
- Carbon sinks? Dude, people are planting trees in cities for the shade.
  
  There’s a quote about planting trees and not living to see their shade
  I’m a bit more pessimistic of people plus with smog cover how often will they need shade?
- Good thing people don't like to vandalize glass.
  
  Usually spray paint it rather than breaking it, and you would hope it’d be fiberglass so it doesn’t just break

Trees don’t create shareholder profits
- useless pests they are. who cares that they provide free shade, free oxygen, free beauty for all to enjoy. Fucking commies.
  
  I agree trees are commies. Must be why Trump is going to clear cut several hundred million acres of the last remaining old growth forests …because they’re full of commie trees

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.
- 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...
- 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.

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

even your trees will be slop. nice.

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.

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

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)
- 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.
  
  Probably not a statistically significant difference since wind is a thing.
  
  I think there is a difference between air quality (pollution) and co2 levels.
  
  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

"Why do you say this is stupid? You're so negative." Run of the mill conformist toxic optimist tech bro dildo

- But they look good and provide shade. Worth it.

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 citu green and walkable, and you solve so many problems in one go
- fuck sidewalks, tree roots can fuck up entire buildings
- 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.
- 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.

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.
Source
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
  https://open.spotify.com/episode/3AZIvnCFvavc9Qfs10XPxW
  
  Spotify doesn't work on my phone. Care to link the podcast page on a platform not trying to corner the market, please?

This just makes me think it’s an aquarium that needs to be cleaned.

im guessing "where will the animals go" is also a stupid question?
- Also, where do I find the shade?
  
  You will shelter next to the goo tank and you will like it.
  
  Exactly what I love about the Seattle tree coverage. So much shade.
- I would guess into the tree soup.
- But you can for oxygen. Total Recall taught us this.
  
  You mean Space Balls?

Upkeep costs. Oh, wait.

We can have both trees and this ! Let’s replace the stupid ad spots on bus stops with these 😮

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.
  
  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.

Real answer is probably that they'd be used in addition to trees, designed to fit in places unsuitable for a tree.
- This. Trees (especially large ones) are a pain to irrigate properly, might not be drought-resistant, grow very slowly until they reach their full potential at removing CO2, interfere with infrastructure that we humans are used to (piping, electricity, telco), roots break up pavements, branches can be a hazard after storms, fruit might attract rats, ...
  I'm very much pro trees (despite what I've listed in the first paragraph), but I'm sure there are places in cities where you can't plant trees but could put up algae tanks.
  If you understand German (specifically Austrian dialect) you might like this podcast episode about challenges and methods to overcome them in the context of greenery in the city of Graz:
  Simple Smart Buildings: Bäume in der Stadt
  Webseite der Episode: https://podcasted3e6b.podigee.io/153-baume-in-der-stadt
  Mediendatei: https://audio.podigee-cdn.net/1742586-m-9ecab280e580cd07f75c83ed9379b970.mp3?source=feed
  TL;DL of this episode: it's not as simple as "just plant more trees".
- Yes. Algae is better in absorbing co2 than tree, but tree is important as a shade and creating a cooling effect for the surrounding. Both is important for different thing and combine it you get the best of both world, especially in a lot of urban area where planting big tree isn't possible
- Like walls of high-rises.

Less infrastructure erosion from roots? Integration into places like above ground parking spaces? Hell could you imagine integrating them into bridge underpasses or walk ways? Heck make a semi destructible version and use that for crash bollards. Only a level 5 vegan is going to complain if some allege is spilt.

Has the manufacturer even calculated how much energy is needed for production and how long it will take for the corresponding CO2 emissions to be amortized?
We are living in strange times...
- And trees that are planted in cities are not seeded. They are grown in a forestry until they reach a certain height. And then dug up with machines transported with machines and then planted with machines. The CO2 produced to plant a single tree also takes quite a while to be absorbed by that tree.
- Who cares? You can sell these tanks for a better profit than trees.

"What's wrong with trees" ask people who have never had an allergy or thought about what roots do to all those nice expensive foundations

trees are not as profitable

Insert random copypasta about biotech breakthrough that turns water and CO2 and nutrients into sustainable building materials which sounds like space age technology but it's just trees

You can’t charge a subscription fee for trees.
- 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.
- That's where youre wrong.

I guess it would take a lot of time to accommodate Mars for trees. More than for algae ;)

Trees arent liquid

Your just thinking outside the box!

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.

Green shit on your terrace, leaves fucking everywhere, looming threat of bird shit on your head, seeds everywhere, roots growing through everything, blocking the sun at every step, tough lessons in gravity for things kids climbing them, lot of damage when it's stormy out.
But nah trees are great, really.
Edit: apparently I need to clarify that I really do love nature more than the concrete jungle, but there are things you can find that are not that great about trees.
- blocking the sun at every step
  That's a feature. I don't want to be grilled by the sun everywhere I go.
  Great for local air quality, too.
- Oh no, nature is getting in the way of...a civilization of bipedal animals that encroached on nature!
  It's abhorrent!!
- ETA: Yes, that definitely needed clarification.
  Gray shit on your everything, concrete fucking everywhere, looming threat of 2-ton steel death machines caving in your head, overheating everywhere, asphalt plowing through everything, soaking up the sun at every step, tough lessons in momentum for kids crossing them, lot of traffic and pollution when there are drivers out.
  You could change half of your words, and keep the meaning the same, and make a compelling case that roads, or any other things, are humanity's greatest scourge.
  If all you can do is complain that the natural world is insufficiently bent to your personal convenience, you are the problem with humanity right now.
  Go touch whatever remaining local flora people like you have allowed to continue to exist, and quit being an imbecilic bellend online.