Real answer is probably that they'd be used in addition to trees, designed to fit in places unsuitable for a tree.

Trees don’t create shareholder profits

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...

Keep in mind that tree roots can brake through anything

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

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"

Alternative in what sense?

I would support legislation that mandated these be used around the highest carbon emitting facilities. Maybe a few very well designed structures (algae tanks) in very densely populated cities.

These would be in no way a replacement for trees in a community but, I could see forcing the corporations to use them. Such as those that must pollute because, they can not manufacture these products without polluting.

You can’t charge a subscription fee for trees.

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

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