Ah yes, the annual debate between supporters of fake Christmas trees (cutting down juvenile trees, displaying them for two weeks, then throwing them in the garbage is destructive, wasteful, and highly unfriendly to the environment) and real ones (the Christmas-tree business keeps land that would otherwise be developed in trees, plus the fake ones are often made of plastic or vinyl).

Grist magazine took a look and came up with the following conclusion:

If you must have a tree, the good old-fashioned wooden kind is the right option. That does not necessarily make them a great option, though, and you should do your tree-selecting with care. Christmas trees are an agricultural product and carry the attendant issues of all mass agriculture. There are trees grown with pesticides and herbicides vs. organic specimens, there are family operations vs. large-scale producers, etc. The bottom line: Go for the actual tree and try to support a small-scale sustainable grower if you can. Now, some eco-tip-happy folks will suggest additional options. There’s the “Buy a live tree and plant it” option, which I think is excessively poor advice if you a) live in a city or b) are susceptible to charging ahead with plantings inappropriate to your landscape. More reasonably, there’s the “Don’t buy a tree at all!” option, which I trust you have all already considered.

A real tree was definitely on the agenda for my first holiday season in my new home. Purchased it a few nights ago. But the only tree seller within walking distance was my local grocery store; and I have no idea where their trees come from. Will have to do more investigating next year…

Grist Magazine via Lifehacker. Photo credit: BBC Gardening.