Greenthinker Debate: Real vs. Artificial Christmas Trees
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.
5 Comments. Add your comments!
Fortunately I live in an area where I can go out to the woods and cut my own tree. No pestisides, etc. Nice day out in the country, family activity, lunch in some little discovered small town cafe. Of course, I'd rather live out in the country and not have to burn the gas going back and forth, but if I'm going to spend money, I'd rather do it doing something with my kids.
By Bernie May, at 4:31 PM, December 09, 2005
I think its okay to bring up the topic but I must say to your comment of buying form a small grower... I must voice that this is usually leads to a poor economic decision. We live in a capitalistic economy and if you want to make the most out of your money then you should buy the best deal. Whether it comes from Costco or your neighbor's 100 tree farm.
But hey thats just me.
By muychingon, at 4:59 PM, December 09, 2005
Yes, our economy is a capitalist one, and yes, that means that most consumers will buy with price being their number one consideration; however, sometimes there are more important things at stake. Large-scale producers are able to offer similar products at lower prices, but this is only because they cut corners in ways with which many consumers (myself included) do not agree, e.g., using pesticides and herbicides (both mentioned in the article). At this point, the moral implications of supporting these producers become a more important consideration than the price. Similarly, many vegetarians and vegans do not eat meat or animal products not because they believe that eating meat and animal products is wrong in itself, but that the methods used to bring these products to their table are wrong (of course, though, there are vegetarians and vegan who do not believe it is right to eat meat). Simply put, this is not a question of what is or isn't good for the economy--it's about more than that. This is about what's best for the environment and humanity as a whole. Economic needs are not human needs.
By Anonymous, at 11:25 AM, December 11, 2005
Thanks for posting on this debate. A friend of mine was poking fun at me (knowing my hippie ways) for buying a real tree, 'cause she saw somewhere that Christmas tree farms are one of the biggest ground water polluters. Hers is fake - plastic. I told her that I didn't care if they were ground water polluters, that there was no way in hell a tree made from petroleum byproducts was more environmentally sound, even if you can use it year after year after year.
Between the fact that it's made of oil, that the oil is shipped here from god-knows-where, and that the processing uses oil and pollutes the air, I just can't imagine how badly plastic Christmas tree production pollutes. As Umbra points out, of course, the most environmentally sound way would be to not have a tree. How boring would that be, though?
Just thank the tree for giving its life so that you can use it for celebration, and dispose of it properly when you're finished. Try and buy from a local tree farm that produces the trees sustainably.
By George, at 10:11 AM, December 12, 2005
As a arborist and an employee of a nursery I have to state that most of the land used by these small growers can only be maintained by growing christmas trees, These smal growers if not supported will eventually sell their land and these properties will be developed into housing and commercial areas. What has more of a negative benefit?
Several of the growers we buy from are former farmers that had to switch to growing trees when the prices they were getting for their crops dropped as a result of these corporate farms controlling the local market.
That's my two cents. Support your local tree grower. There are plenty that are trying sustainable methods to reduce and eliminate the need for chemicals.
By Chris, at 10:55 AM, December 21, 2005
Post a Comment
<< Home