It’s time to discuss one of the perennial debates of the holiday season: Which are more eco-friendly, real trees or their fake counterparts?
If you ask Tim O’Connor, executive director of the National Christmas Tree Association, the answer is obvious.
“I think it’s just a no-brainer that real Christmas trees are far superior for the environment,” he said. “Let’s just start with a product of nature versus a product that’s made from oil.”
Of course, O’Connor’s organization represents Christmas tree farmers. Here’s what studies and environmentalists say.
The studies
The most recent U.S. analysis of the issue is from 2018, when a life cycle assessment — measuring the environmental impact of real and fake trees over the course of production to disposal — was published. (It’s worth noting that the study was done by a consulting firm contracted by the American Christmas Tree Association, which represents the artificial-tree industry.)
The analysis took into account things like the netting around real Christmas trees and the water used to keep them alive in homes, versus the plastic packaging tape used on fake-tree boxes and transportation from manufacturers in China.
It concluded that artificial trees have a more favorable effect on the environment if reused for at least five years.
It’s worth noting, though, that with all these variables, the study says that transportation accounts for around 15% of total global warming potential for artificial Christmas trees and 10% to 12% for real ones. So if that tree farm or big-box store is a long drive away, it can really sway things.
“Neither a farm-grown tree or a faux tree has a superlarge environmental impact compared to some daily activities like commuting a long way in a gas-powered car,” said Mac Harman, the CEO of Balsam Hill, which makes high-end fake trees and offers an eco-friendly line of trees made from recycled plastics and plant-based plastic. “One long commute could be about the impact of having a Christmas tree for a year.”
Environmentalists, meanwhile, suggest studies shouldn’t be the only evidence consumers take into account.
“Studies can really vary on anything depending on who’s funding the study, what parameters they’re looking at, which elements are the most important, or are they just looking at carbon impacts? Are they looking at other resource impacts? Are they considering extraction? Are they considering disposal?” said Darby Hoover of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Beautiful but harmful, synthetic grass can be banned in California
Write a Reply or Comment
You should Sign In or Sign Up account to post comment.