Why you should get real with your Christmas tree
An artificial tree would take 20 years to be as environmentally friendly as the real thing
Everyone goes green — colourfully speaking — when they buy a Christmas tree, be it real or artificial.
But the greenest path — the route with the shallowest carbon footprint — is murky, and fraught with bias.
In Ontario, natural trees often grow on regional or local farms, and meet their demise organically by returning to the earth as mulch.
Artificial trees, available in big box stores across the country after a journey from China, are typically made from polyvinyl chloride. PVC unleashes dioxin, a carcinogen, into the air during production and again during disposal if burned.
“You’ve got all sorts of different products that go into that manufacturing and transportation process, most of which are petroleum-based,” said Matthew Leitch, an associate professor of natural resources management at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ont.
An artificial tree, however, can be recycled for decades and demands no pesticides or fertilizers, he noted.
Montreal consulting firm Ellipsos found that an artificial tree would need to be reused for at least 20 years to earn a greener halo than a fresh-cut fir, pine or spruce. Over a typical six-year life cycle, an artificial tree incurs three times the amount of carbon emissions than those associated with using a natural conifer, according to the independent study.
“The natural tree is the best,” Ellipsos president Jean-Sebastien Trudel told the Star, noting that other researchers have found the average fake-tree consumer junks them after six years.
Ellipsos focused on the Christmas tree market in Montreal, with trees grown in Quebec or manufactured in China. Results would likely differ based on city and region, the 2009 report stated.
The American Christmas Tree Association, a trade group representing the artificial tree industry, insists its member companies’ products conform to environmental dictates.
“There is a clear environmental breakeven point between the two trees,” said William Paddock, managing director of WAP Sustainability Consulting, based in Nashville, Tenn. He stated in a release that the energy demanded to produce one artificial tree amounts to the energy required to grow and cut six conifers.
John Klecker, who runs Taylor Tree Farms in Stouffville, Ont., thinks that viewpoint loses the forest for the trees. “Hands down, it’s going to be a real tree that’s more environmentally friendly,” he told the Star.
Natural trees provide wildlife habitat, protect against soil erosion, sequester carbon dioxide and produce oxygen during the eight to 10 years they grow before being hauled to market, he said.
“Our main conclusion is whether you choose the natural tree or the artificial tree, overall we’re not talking about really big impacts on the environment, compared with overheating your house or driving to work every day,” Trudel said.