Dec
6
Can someone explain what’s behind this movement I keep reading about regarding “eco friendly” Christmas trees? From the Lifehacker link:
Web site The Daily green suggests several green options that won’t require cutting down and transporting trees or buying oil-derived fake plastic trees, like going for a live, plantable tree, decorating a tree outdoors, or—if you must—buying US-made artificial trees to reduce the carbon footprint from transportation.
Maybe I’m missing something, but isn’t cutting a real tree about a “eco friendly” as you can get? Christmas trees from a farm are a renewable resource, and biodegradable at that!
December 7th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Yes, a real Christmas tree could be considered good for the environment - as long as it remains alive. I doubt that the energy expended by planting, cutting, and transporting farmed Christmas trees in any way comes close to equaling the tiny amount of carbon that such trees would sink. Transportation especially is where I figure the most energy is wasted. While some tree farms may be able to sell their trees directly to consumers, the vast majority are transported to tree lots first. An extreme example of this is in Hawaii, where a thriving business exists every year in shipping trees from the mainland.
Personally, I figure a good-quality artificial tree makes a little better sense than a cut real tree, both environmentally and economically. Once it is purchased and brought home, no more gas has to be spent transporting it unless the owner moves, and if treated well, it can last long enough to more than cover the expense of multiple years worth of cut trees. While I’ve heard of people with evergreen allergies, I’ve never heard of someone allergic to an artificial tree. Also, fewer needles to vacuum up (less electricity), and no extra expense to get rid of it after the holidays. While people who live in more rural areas may be able to compost or burn cut trees on their property, most people in the US live in urban areas, meaning they have to pay to get rid of their old trees, and more fuel is used to transport them away.
But really, the ideal situation would be to have a real tree and keep it alive. The tree can continue to clean the air and grow. If it is brought indoors, it can be replanted afterwards (though I imagine the timing would vary by climate). If it remains outside, no damage is done to the roots. Over time, new trees can be planted as older trees grow to big to either bring indoors or decorate outdoors.
Bottom line: yes, trees are a renewable resource and are biodegradable, but the energy cost to transport them to millions of American households far outweighs those benefits.
One more thing - dude, stop the hippie bashing. You’re about 45 years too late for that.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I guess….granted I can’t say I’m that familiar with the shipping industry of Christmas trees. But the whole idea just seems excessively picky.
Maybe it’s a perk of being in the mid-Michigan area, but there’s any number of “u-cut” tree farms nearby in most cities around here. No need to go to a lot with trees shipped from wherever - I can trudge through the snow, saw in hand, and cut my own. In my mind, the “cost” of driving 5-10 minutes to the nearest place is inconsequential, it’s just part of the overall cost to do most anything. I’ve long since given up on trying to live in a hypoallergenic world.
Maybe it’s just a combination of traditionalism, aesthetics, and rural background. I just don’t see the artificial trees as being of the same quality as the real ones. Maybe it’s the whole experience of going out and getting that “perfect” tree each year rather than unpacking it from a box in the basement. In my situation I *do* have the ability to locally cut and dispose of said tree, and I don’t imagine the artificial ones will have that awesome pine scent I can only otherwise find in my car. Granted, this probably doesn’t apply everyone.
I can see the arguments in reducing excessive plastic wastes, in conserving electricity (although honestly, I see that only as economically caused rather than idealistically), etc. But to argue that cutting down a tree that is purposely grown, easily renewed, and still relatively easily disposed is somehow not “environmentally friendly” just seems a bit too much. I’m just thinking there are better ways to make an impact.
Heh, is it ever too late to bash hippies?
<cartman>Respect ma authorita!</cartman>
December 7th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
“…the “cost” of driving 5-10 minutes to the nearest place is inconsequential…”
No, its not. Think of how much gas would be saved (both in terms of cost and emissions) if every driver in the US avoided one 5-10 minute trip/day. The idea of trying to ‘green’ every aspect of our lives, even Christmas trees, is that all these little costs add up and in many cases aren’t so little. Individually, you and I don’t ‘pay for’ the full cost of getting a tree or going for a short drive or any number of other small tasks or objects directly, because the costs aren’t reflected directly to the consumer. Instead, that short drive in the winter that everyone in Michigan makes becomes higher transportation costs, greater emissions, greater health risks, greater expenses in the future.
That said, if you do have the ability to get your tree locally, its probably much more ‘green’ than any I could get in Hawaii. And I sympathize with the aesthetics of a real tree. But I’ve always wondered how difficult it would be to get a real tree and keep it alive instead of cutting it, which you have to admit would be the most ‘eco friendly’ option.
(And as far as South Park goes, everyone knows Butters is the real moral authority there.)