Close this Advertisement

Live Holiday Trees Make Mulch, Not Landfill Clutter

  • Dec 07, 2009

Climate change expert Clint Springer, Ph.D., of Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, suggests live trees are a great way to begin to "go green" this holiday season.

“From start to finish, this one choice has an effect that reaches far beyond your living room,” says Springer, a botanist and assistant professor of biology.

Although some people consider farm-raised trees wasteful and potentially harmful to the environment, given that they are enjoyed for a brief time before a trip to the curb for trash pick-up after the festivities, Springer says the opposite is true.

“For the sustainable consumer, a live Christmas tree is preferable to artificial,” he says. “An expenditure on a live tree results in a carbon-neutral purchase that poses very little threat to the environment.”

Conversely, producing an artificial tree requires an increased use of resources, especially those that are non-renewable, such as petroleum, and also causes the release of harmful greenhouse gases during their production, processing and shipping. “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.

In addition, Springer says, farmers commonly plant saplings to replace trees sold for the holiday season harvest, which culminates in nearly a zero net exchange of greenhouse gases over the life of each purchased tree.

Springer says the choice to go live is also a boon to the domestic economy: the industry brings in over $500 million annually, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. “Pennsylvania, for example, boasts more Christmas tree farms than any other state, while most artificial trees are produced in China.”

Springer studies the effect of increased levels of carbon dioxide on the flowering time of plants.

Comments

Tue, Dec 15, 2009 Mark Hansen Central NY

As a Christmas tree grower I can assure you that these trees are not heavily fertilized. I never fertilize mine at all. Most of the energy expended to care for them was my own! Admittedly, some diesel fuel is used to operate a tractor and mower - but only when the trees are very young. No packaging is required for natural trees. Most municipalities that collect trees after the holiday mulch them. Aw c'mon folks! A natural tree is far more beautiful.

Fri, Dec 11, 2009 Jen

I have a family member who is allergic to pine and so we cannot have a real tree, or use any pine-scented cleaners. My first fake tree was a hand-me-down tree that was nearly 30 years old. My current fake tree is 7 years old and I anticipate using it until it begins to fall apart. I don't need to travel every year to purchase and haul home a real tree. Parts of worn-out fake trees can be re-used, branches can be made into other decorations, further prolonging their life.

Wed, Dec 9, 2009 Kathryn

What about carbon emissions/petroleum use associated with transporting live trees to the market? This must be done yearly, whereas an artificial tree would be transported once and used for several years (we have had a single one for over ten years). Are live trees heavily fertilized? If so, that is an additonal petroleum-consuming process not associated with artificial trees.

Tue, Dec 8, 2009 Bill Juris Columbus, Ohio

The environmental tip of the week suggests that live trees should be used in place of artificial trees for the holiday season for the following reasons:
(1) A real tree is a carbon-neural purchase that poses very little threat to the environment.
(2) An artificial tree requires an increased use of non-renewable resources, such as petroleum.
(3) An artificial tree causes the release of harmful greenhouse gases during their production, processing, and shipping.
(4) Fake trees eventually end up in a landfill where they will linger in the environment forever.
(5) Live trees are recycled and made into mulch.
(6) Live trees support the domestic economy, whereas artificial trees are mostly produced in China.

I suggest a contrarian view based upon the following:
(1) Real life tree are not carbon neutral because many are burned outdoors (CO2 emissions) or end up decaying outdoors (above ground or in a landfill) to produce methane emissions, and all are transported (fuel-related CO2 emissions).
(2) Although artificial trees require the use of a nonrenewable resource, such impact is greatly exaggerated due to the prolonged life of artificial trees, less transportation fuel (due to lower weight per tree and prolonged useful life), and potential use of organic-derived materials for production.
(3) Fake trees have no disposal-related environmental emissions, unless burned in a municipal incinerator. They can be nearly carbon neutral from production to disposal (i.e., unearthed carbon becomes buried carbon).
(4) The domestic economy could be helped by the domestic production of artificial trees by means of the funding of the local artificial tree industry, the production of organic-based fuel and materials, and the potential use of recycled plastic for tree production.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above