So I think the general idea is that you can convert more CO² to carbon in the form of sugars and O² molecules per square foot with algae than with trees. Trees would totally do the same thing if we ripped up all the concrete and buildings to replant a forest, but that process would take decades.
This can be added into existing infrastructure and helps I guess. Kinda a neat concept.
But why not just like… Do that somewhere where the mass actually makes a difference? You’d be better off dumping acres full of this shit instead of regrowing a forest. Doing it in individual tanks, sparsely within a city, is both an inefficient use of resources and fucking ugly.
Trees only purpose in a city is not to clean out CO2. It’s not even their primary purpose in a city. If it was, they’d be selecting specific species etc.
I mean ideally we would flood the ocean with Fe³ and spark a mass breed of this shit where it belongs. The biomass could work it’s way up the food chain as an added benefit too.
We created a big problem by injecting a lot of shit where it shouldn’t be. If we stop that, some pieces will bounce back.
Injecting more shit in another place means we have one big problem, that we haven’t stopped, and now a new problem that we don’t know the repurcussions of or how to reverse.
So uh, yeah, I’ll stick with the one beast we know over one we know and also another we don’t.
It’s okay to say you don’t understand marine chemistry, there is no shame in it.
The whole “seed the oceans with ferrous oxide” idea isn’t mine. In fact many better minds came up with it. You can check it out if you want, no pressure.
It’s funny, because your own ignorance is showing. There’s plenty of research to suggest that iron fertilization is controversial, which directly contradicts your (very condescending) assertion.
My point is that you’re being dismissive of very reasonable concerns that are supported by published scientific literature. Further, rather than address those concerns directly, you chose to deflect with condescension and belittlement.
So no, I’m not going to trust you, because the only thing that you’ve done to prove your point is be an ass.
It is much easier to destroy something than it is to repair it. This applies to the original changes we made through exploitation, pollution, etc. But also to the radical change you propose, it is much easier for it to have a destructive effect compared to having a positive effect.
Alright I’m just going off of what I learned in environmental science class this summer, not an expert here. There was something about algae blooms (usually caused by fertilizer runoff) being a really bad thing for local ecosystems. I’m not sure if this is relevant to what you’re saying, just throwing it out there lol
I have this fantasy where we humanity has a whole biotechnology skill tree that we never unlocked but there’s like a Renaissance waiting to happen that will one day uncover all these cool new branch’s
Exactly man… fewer floods, more biodiversity, they look nice which is better for mental health and reducing hypertension (the number one risk factor correlated with deaths), some of them give you fruits or nuts to eat… Trees are awesome.
I think any city should strive to have at least as many trees as the number of people living in it.
I saw something like this, which piped exhaust from a generator thru a container of water and algae, with the idea to capture the co2, etc produced. Sure why not. I'll still prefer trees.
God, yes. Trees provide shade, transpirative cooling, homes for animals (birds, mammals, insects), and a particular natural beauty that tanks of algae do not.
Nobody uses an urban tree that gets cut down. It just gets hauled off to the landfill.
It’s absolutely ludicrous that when the gigantic oak in my yard fell the arborist didn’t know of anybody who could cut it up into lumber for me – even in a city with so many urban trees that it’s called the “city in a forest” – but allegedly the economics of it don’t work out, or something. I dunno if that’s true, but it pisses me off enough that I’m half-tempted to go buy a damn portable sawmill and start a business doing it myself.
Say that to the table in my living room. (They removed a lot of old exotic trees that were lining some road some years back, those trees got sold to people making nice tables).
Selling the trees was only a side effect, and these weren’t your run of the mill trees either. But exceptions exist
This doesn’t have a root system to worry about so it needs less underground space. Don’t get me wrong I love me a good tree, but in places where there isn’t enough land for roots to spread this could be useful. Lots of side walk trees die due to not enough space for the roots
Trees and algae have different utilities. Trees are beautiful, reduce temperature, offer shade, and produce a modest amount of oxygen. Algae tanks produce vastly more oxygen by volume and cause you to question whether it’s really enough to continue meandering through life in this stone and metal postmodern hellscape and maybe it’s okay to finally indulge in a vacation near open fields and untamed wilderness. The local camping spots might be available in a few weeks if my sanity can hold out. One doesn’t completely substitute the other.
Let me explain what I mean by that: when a driver fucks up and his car careens off the street and hits a tree, the tree stops the car very abruptly. That’s great for, say, an innocent pedestrian who was saved by hiding behind the tree, but can apply rather serious consequences to the negligent driver. Car-brained traffic engineers see it as their mission to protect drivers from any and all consequences, so they insist on ripping out all the trees to create a gigantic “clear zone” so that the car is free to careen wherever it wants without hitting anything solid. Squishy things within the clear zone, such as pedestrians, don’t enter into consideration.
In other words, one important “advantage” of these “liquid trees” over real trees is that they can be mounted on breakaway stands, so that they yield (and therefore provide no protection to any hapless bastard who might’ve been sitting on the bench at the time) when a car hits them.
Local ordinances specify minimum space requirements for trees, which may mean that they’re not allowed to be put in certain places. Also, they can cause pedestrian safety issues, as well as Ada compliance problems in confined spaces. This is an easy way to get something green in a place where you would otherwise not see a tree because of a lot of beaurocratic bullshit.
Obviously, you can argue that all that needs to be changed. And you’d be right. And in many places it’s moving that way. But then you also wouldn’t get anything done for quite some time. This is an option where there might be no other viable options at the moment.
Add comment