| |
 |
|
Problem
Product/ Chistmas
Trees (sob!)
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.
C. Blackmar
Problem Product Investigator
Past
Problem Products >>
|
|
