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
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
They get in the way of parking spots. The steel cages must rule supreme.
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".
This just makes me think it’s an aquarium that needs to be cleaned.
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.
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.
trees are not as profitable
Upkeep costs. Oh, wait.
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
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.