NYTIMES: How Green Is Your Artificial Christmas Tree? You Might Be Surprised
""Kim Jones, who was shopping for a tree at a Target store in Brooklyn this week, was convinced that she was doing the planet a favor by buying a $200 fake balsam fir made in China instead of buying a carbon-sipping pine that had been cut down for one season’s revelry.
“I’m very environmentally conscious,” Ms. Jones said. “I’ll keep it for 10 years, and that’s 10 trees that won’t be cut down.”
But Ms. Jones and the millions of others buying fake trees might not be doing the environment any favors.
In the most definitive study of the perennial real vs. fake question, an environmental consulting firm in Montreal found that an artificial tree would have to be reused for more than 20 years to be greener than buying a fresh-cut tree annually. The calculations included greenhouse gas emissions, use of resources and human health impacts.
“The natural tree is a better option,” said Jean-Sebastien Trudel, founder of the firm, Ellipsos, that released the independent study last year""
“You’re not doing any harm by cutting down a Christmas tree,” said Clint Springer, a botanist and professor of biology at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. “A lot of people think artificial is better because you’re preserving the life of a tree. But in this case, you’ve got a crop that’s being raised for that purpose.”
I have always thought that fake trees are much more worse than a real tree because some of them are made out of the materials that are not necessarily reusable. Knowing that fact fake trees may do more damage than real trees that will decompose and provide nutrients to the earth if cut down.
ReplyDeleteEven if the fake can be RECYCLED, the whole process is going to take way more resources than to just cut one tree down.
It is better to just do it the old fashion way: cut a little real tree and enjoy it without any guilt... :)