• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Trees offer real world benefits of carbon reduction, temperature reduction, shade for people, the psychological benefits that trees offer, some limited wildlife habitat, and they do it without much outside help. They grow themselves with decent maintenance.

    But you have to build and maintain this tank. What carbon was used to do so, and what maintenance will it need. Can it offset its own cost? It offers no benefits to wildlife, no shade, no temperature reduction.

    Yeah, trees leave leaf litter and can heave sidewalks with roots, but given that neither system is perfect, there’s no reason to argue that boxes of algae are better.

    • Ook the Librarian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do we need to argue which is better? In some places, beautification isn’t really practical, but you can still stick these around. They don’t look hard to install or uninstall, unlike trees.

      I would hate to see a tree actually replaced by one these. But no one but the meme is saying that is the plan.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think we have reached the limit for how much we should “improve” and replace nature, if there’s no room for trees we should make room instead of accomodating yet another industrial solution to a problem created by industry in the first place.

        We’re going in the wrong direction.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      carbon reduction

      Mostly indirect.

      Also trees dampen noise

      Can it offset its own cost?

      I guess.

      there’s no reason to argue that boxes of algae are better.

      Depends on metric of choice. Still I would prefer trees.