An Expert Answers: Real Christmas Tree or Fake?
by Jennifer Berry
Published on December 5th, 2008
10 Comments
Still debating on whether to go real or artificial for this year’s Christmas tree? According to Newswise, the winner is that old-fashioned, living, breathing, carbon-sequestering noble fir (or any living Christmas tree, for that matter).
Clint Springer, Ph.D., a botanist and global warming expert at Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, said that when making the choice, environmental impact should be at the top of your list. While many consumers may think they are considering the environment when purchasing a fake tree, they may not understand the entire footprint of that PVC tree. Also, given the current economic climate, artificial trees may be appealing for their “investment” appeal, whereas a real tree is a recurrent, annual expense.
A PVC Christmas
For artificial tress, the rub lies in their fabrication. First of all, to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic, you need petroleum, a non-renewable, carbon-emitting resource. There’s also a release of greenhouse gases (GHGs) during their manufacture, processing and shipping.
Also, don’t let the word “plastic” fool you, artificial tress are not recyclable. “Another huge drawback to fake trees is that eventually, they will end up in a landfill where they will linger in the environment forever, whereas live trees are recycled and made into mulch,” Springer explains.
The All-Mighty $
Sure, spending a couple hundred dollars for a purchase that you could potentially use many years over sounds appealing. However, Springer says the choice to go “live” helps the economy more, considering the Christmas tree industry brings in over $500 million annually, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. “For example, Pennsylvania boasts more Christmas tree farms than any other state – while most artificial trees are produced in China,” he says.
Not Sold Yet?
“An expenditure on a live tree results in a carbon neutral purchase that poses very little environmental threat, while injecting money into the domestic economy,” said Springer.
For Springer, the ideal tree is raised organically, eliminating any pollution from pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides. Also, this organic tree is raised somewhere near to the consumer, to reduce GHG emissions in transport.
If finding an organically grown tree is problematic, the live tree still beats a plastic one – even considering the potential pollution from pesticides. Research from North Carolina State University has shown that the run-off of chemicals to streams by Christmas tree farms does not cause a significant threat to water quality.
Drumroll Please…
On top of these environmental and economical benefits, Christmas tree growers must use sustainability in their farms – otherwise, they would run out of trees to ship to you each Christmas. They plant saplings to replace trees sold for the holiday season harvest, which culminates in a zero net exchange of greenhouse gases over the life of each purchased tree, according to Springer.
When you’re done with your live tree this year, be sure to go zero-waste by recycling it. A number of great things can come from this simple step in greening your holidays.
Rick Dungey
posted on December 6th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Nice article Jennifer. Like so many other pro-environmental writers, you are correct to tell your readers that a farm-grown Christmas tree is a much better eco-choice than a plastic, manufactured tree which is non-biodegradable.
However, I find it intriguing that Dr. Springer informs your readers that buying a tree from an “organic” tree farm is a better choice than a tree grown on any other tree farm. I’ve been looking into this issue since consumers ask us about it sometimes and based on the legitimate scientific research out there, no evidence exists to suggest that his assertion is correct. Do you know of any scientific research showing that organic trees are better somehow than non-organic ones? I recently read a fascinating book as part of my research called The Truth About Organic Foods by Alex Avery.
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Organic-Foods/dp/0978895207/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228415670&sr=1-1
One of the most enlightening things I learned was that the common belief that organic farms don’t use pesticides is utterly and completely untrue. Copper Sulfate, Nicotine Sulfate, Bt, pyrethrum, Spinosad…the list of fungicides, insecticides and herbicides approved for use by the National Organic Standards Board reads like a toxicology report. Yet, curiously, I never see any mention of these pesticides in mainstream articles blithely telling readers that organic agricultural products are better for the environment. I think you and experts like Dr. Springer owe it to your readers to tell them that organic farms do indeed use pesticides, they just come from different sources. But they are just as poisonous as man-made chemicals, and in some cases, much more toxic. And in many cases, the application rates of organic approved pesticides is much higher because they are not as effective at eliminating pests. So the environmental burden can actually be higher.
I also have a philosophical dilemma with his assertion that buying a tree from a local farm only is a good environmental choice. Would he suggest the same thing about all agricultural products? I mean, here in the Midwest, if I want a banana or an orange or many other farm-products, I have to get them from a long way away. Is this a bad environmental choice? Should I only eat peanuts if I live in Georgia? Should I only eat blueberries if I live in Maine or Michigan? Should I only wear cotton T-shirts if I live in Alabama or Mississippi? Personally, I’m glad I live in a country where I can buy agricultural products from all over the country (and even some imported) all year long. I don’t think that’s bad for the environment, I think it’s good for people.
To be clear, buying a Christmas tree from a local farm or even an organic farm are perfectly fine options. It’s not better or worse…just different. I just think it’s misleading to your readers to suggest that if they don’t do that, they are making a bad environmental choice.
Merry Christmas!
Rick Dungey
Public Relations Manager
National Christmas Tree Association
Christmas
posted on December 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Hii, I just want to say Merry Christmas 2008. :))
Troy McDonald
posted on December 25th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Hey Rick,
Sounds like you have an axe to grind with organic farming. You might need a chemistry degree, or something to make you an expert in the field, before you go spouting off about that.
You might want to stick to giving advise about Christmas trees.
Jackie
posted on December 31st, 2008 at 7:38 am
Troy,
One does not need any type of degree in order to be able to read books/articles/studies, develop conclusions, and form opinions. I do not believe that one needs to be considered an expert in a certain field in order to comment. If that were the case, then no one would have any opinions/comments at all, except for those in a very narrow academic field in which they studied. Think about it this way…
Most people I know comment on politics; however, they do not have a degree in political science. Does this mean they should keep their opinions to themselves unless they go out and earn a political science degree?
Now, you may be right that Rick has an axe to grind. Or you may be wrong. It is our job as readers to determine how credible the information is before we decide whether or not to believe it. If nothing else, it hopefully makes people want to learn more and do some research of their own. Does the fact that Rick works for the National Christmas Tree Association mean he has a biased opinion? Sure. On the other hand, there is bias everywhere. We all have some level of bias on different issues. Furthermore, I would expect that most people are biased in favor of whatever field in which they work.
It is not our job to say who is or is not qualified to comment on issues. That being said, I would rather read a comment that is based on some research or personal experience than one that is not. In this case, Rick has provided the title of a book to read, which I think is helpful.
One last thing…
It seems to me that when it comes to environmental issues (fake vs. real trees, organic farming, climate change, carbon footprints, etc.) and health issues (heart health, risks associated with smoking, alcohol consumption, exercise, etc.); one can always find experts on both sides of the issue at hand. It is hard to know what to believe. Some experts say that climate change is real, others say it is not. Some experts say that everyone should have one glass of red wine each day; other experts say this is not the case.
Don’t even get me started on how statistics from raw data can be manipulated to support whatever opinion the researcher/newspaper columnist/special interest group wants to support…
Happy New Year!
Brad
posted on January 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 am
Rick,
Sorry I’m late for the discussion. While I agree with your commets on the use of pesticides in organic farms, I disagree with your statement that a local product is not better than a trucked/shipped product. It seems you took you statements out of context. A locally produced product is ALWAYS a better alternative than one that requires a greater consumption of energy to fullfill the same need. If you could buy localy grown bananas, that would be a better (environmental and economic) purchase than bananas shipped from overseas. If you can’t buy a localy grown banana, nobody’s telling you not to eat bananas.
Brad Rhodes, Assoc. AIA, LEED AP
Brad
posted on January 2nd, 2009 at 6:38 am
..and do christmas trees really need PR? Seriously?
Norma
posted on January 16th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
My daughter from 4th grade is going to make a science project about which christmas tree is better for our environment if you have any ideas please let me know.
thank you
Madeline
posted on January 16th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I am going to make a science project about which christmas tree is better for our environment? Do you have suggestions?
Brad
posted on January 20th, 2009 at 6:51 am
I would suggest a locally grown tree, from a tree farm would be the best purchase based on economy and sustainability. However, there is the safety factor. Real trees are extremely flamable when the start to dry out. You can find numerous online videos depicting a fire scenario showing how fast and violently they burn.
I suppose you need to decide what factors are most important to you.
if you’re already thinking about xmas… « living in a modern world.
posted on November 24th, 2009 at 8:56 am
[...] the big question this year seems to be a fake vs. a real tree. some of my friends think fake is better because you save a tree. i am of a different mindset…to me, a christmas tree is a crop. it is grown to be purchased. as the tree grows, you are helping the environment (with CO2 consumption). and if you buy from a local, organic farm (vs. a national retailer), the carbon footprint is far less and you are helping the local economy. an organic farm will also not use pesticides. most cities have tree pickup and then use them for mulch (completing the cycle of tree life). but most of all, i try to make my purchasing decisions based on what is going to happen when you throw that item away (and you will eventually throw that PVC tree away…) and it sits in a landfill forever. but don’t take my word for it, here is an interview from clint springer, Ph.D., a botanist and global warming expert at saint joseph’s university in philadelphia: real vs. fake? [...]