sparrowpost

*Update* check out this NYT article about declining sales of cut trees… and be sure to look at the multimedia slide show!

Though it seems awfully Grinchy to bring up the issue, the question of the environmental cost of the christmas tree tradition is impossible to avoid as this time of year. Interestingly, of all the “problem products” out there, there seem to be few that have been recognized to be problematic by the public at large for so long as the christmas tree.

Since the trees are a lot bigger and more visible than most of the problem products out there, this isn’t too surprising; the sight hundreds of crispy-dried trees stacked in a vacant lot is sobering enough to make an environmentalist out of almost anyone.

Possibly because the discarded trees have been a visible issue for so long, those who rely on christmas trees for their income have developed a very careful defense of their product. Online searches for the “environmentally friendly christmas trees” primarily bring back regurgitated bits of rhetoric from the Christmas Tree Association’s ongoing media blitz. The Association does a fairly savvy job of painting live cut christmas trees as an ecologically friendly crop, and in some senses, they are right to do so. It seems that many consumers’ primary concern is that the trees sold at Target might be harvested from pre-existing forests. As a result, much of the “eco-friendly” argument made by the Association centers around explaining that christmas trees are a crop, just like corn, and are therefore harvested without hurting “natural” forests. Their press release on the subject makes the further point that Christmas trees are even better than your average crop because they take seven to ten years to mature, during which time, they help fix carbon and provide the atmosphere with oxygen.

More Eco-Friendly than Corn
So far, these seem to be rational arguments. To my reading, however, they don’t exactly get to the heart of the issue. I’m not interested in whether christmas trees are a more or less ecologically friendly crop than corn, but in whether there is a cost to the large-scale farming, harvesting, and discarding process we go through every year. Sadly, I think the obvious answer to that question is “yes.” While the Association is right that trees are a more eco-friendly crop than corn, they don’t mention that almost all tree farms use pesticides and fertilizers as they attempt to grow picture-perfect trees. The association also makes a lot of fuss about how the trees are grown on “marginal land,” and that the farms are therefore not taking away valuable farmland from other industries. This argument worries me the most. I wonder what the association considers “marginal land.” Would my local coastal sage scrub be “marginal” in their book? I worry that what they might consider to be “marginal” might actually be of significant ecological value.

In addition to the problems surrounding growing and pesticide-use are problems of transportation and disposal. Because most municipalities have developed programs to recycle used christmas trees into mulch, the problem of trees needlessly being dumped into landfills has subsided. It is important that people make sure to get their trees to recycling centers, though, rather than leaving them in dumpsters or taking them directly to the landfill. The problem of transporting trees to and from retailers is one that won’t vanquished quite so easily, particularly as tree farms move further and further outside of cities. As a result, it is advisable to try to find out from your retailer where their trees are grown, and to try to buy one that sells trees that are grown as close to the market as possible.

Fake Trees?
Other propaganda on the part of the christmas tree growers focuses on how live-cut trees are a better ecological alternative than fake ones. Again, this is a more complicated issue than one might at first expect. The Tree Grower Association correctly makes the point that fake trees are problematic because they are made of petrochemicals and do not biodegrade. They also play the “Made in America” card. Most fake trees are produced in China under less-than-ideal work conditions and are then imported and distributed at a high cost in oil. Also, as noted three paragraphs down on the Earth Day NY website, trees are made of PVC which is often made more malleable by the addition of lead and other additives. Obviously, it is not great to have a tree around that is going to shed toxins in the house. Those who have analyzed the issue suggest that while the average artificial tree is thrown out after three years, that a family would need to hang onto the same tree for at least twelve years if it was going to start to be worth the ecological cost of its production. In summary, if you already own an artificial tree, the best thing to do is to hold onto it and re-use it for as many years as possible. If you don’t own one, it’s probably not a great idea to run out and buy one unless you find it at a yard sale or some other second hand venue.

The Best of All Possible Worlds
So far, the live-cut Christmas tree is looking like the preferable alternative to the fake tree. Most websites that deal with the subject, though, suggest that the best option of them is to buy a truly live tree which can be planted in the ground after Christmas. As always, though, even this option is not without its problems. For people who live in the frozen north, it is very hard to work the ground after Christmas when frigid January temperatures set in. The tree will not thrive, and could very well die if left in the pot, so this means a live-tree owner must spend the period after Christmas waiting around for a lucky thaw in order to plant. Trees also tend to be traumatized by the transition from being outdoors, to being in a dry, heated home. If they are brought in, they should really only stay inside for a week or so. When planting trees outdoors, it should be noted that many of them can become quite big over time (see this link) so it makes sense to set aside a good chunk of turf. (One possibility that is rarely mentioned is that of harvesting the live trees of Christmases past out of one’s own yard… just think of all that exercise one could get by playing lumberjack for the day.)

One innovative company in Portland has taken some of the guesswork out of the live tree option by developing a business that “rents” trees to consumers, and then picks them up and plants either in the renter’s yard, or at a school, median strip, etc. that is open to tree donations. Until this option becomes available to everyone, the rest of us will have to plan ahead for the live tree option.

In Conclusion
If you must have a Christmas tree, it seems that it is better to buy “live cut” than artificial, and that a “live potted” tree which can be planted later is the best option of all. Of course, it would also be possible to make a christmas tree out of something that you already had around the house; your jade plant, the coat rack, a large dead tree branch, etc.

One possibility I particularly like is that of decorating an outdoor tree instead of an indoor one, and celebrating part of Christmas morning outside, maybe with some nice mugs of cider and coffee, and with some bird-watching binoculars. For more on communing with nature for winter solstice, please see the review of Bill McKibben’s “Hundred Dollar Holiday.”

Whichever way you choose to go, I hope that the holiday brings you much joy and a beautiful tree.

This article is a re-print of a December, 2005 Article.