As editor of What sort of Christmas tree is more sustainable, a natural tree, or an artificial tree made of PVC?
Surprisingly enough, according to one lifecycle analysis, the PVC tree wins.
Not surpringly, the analysis was commissioned by the American Christmas Tree Association, a trade group for the artificial Christmas tree industry.
"Owning an artificial Christmas tree is healthier for the environment over a 10 year period than using real trees," the association reports. "The environmental study found that a consumer using an average artificial Christmas tree has a significantly smaller carbon footprint than a consumer using average farm-grown Christmas trees."
My typical tree-acquisition strategy was singled out as the worst of all:
"The study also indicated that driving out to a tree farm and cutting down a tree is the worst environmental choice you can make when buying a Christmas tree and that it's substantially better for the environment to buy a tree from a local retailer rather than to drive out to a farm, due to the incremental fossil fuel consumed."
I guess the association doesn't realize that I live closer to Christmas tree farms than to local retailers.
Anyway, let's take this report with a grain of salt. First, let me repeat my standard complaint about lifecycle analysis -- they always seem to favor the companies sponsoring the report. And how can anyone judge competing environmental claims without making subjective decisions about which criteria are most important?
On top of that, the author of the LCA in this case is PE Americas/PE International, a consulting firm with a history of doing work for the vinyl industry.
Maybe PE International's data is spot on, maybe it's biased. I don't know. I do know that I don't really trust any LCAs.
Finally, thanks to Doug Smock's Engineering Materials blog on DesignNews.com, where I first spotted this news.
Comments (5)
I think we need a real expert for an analysis like this. Which does Santa prefer? PE Americas doesn't have an office in the North Pole does it?
Posted by Matthew K | September 2, 2009 4:47 PM
Posted on September 2, 2009 16:47
It is patently absurd, and defies all logic, to think that a non-biodegradable, plastic and metal product made in a factory from non-renewable resources is in any way better for the environment than using a plant, grown on a farm which is easily recycled back into the Earth.
All fake trees will end up in landfills, whether you use one for 10 years or even 50. They will ALL END UP IN LANDFILLS. Their environmental burden will last thousands and thousands of years.
Posted by The Christmas Tree Guy | September 3, 2009 9:47 AM
Posted on September 3, 2009 09:47
An independent study by Ellipsos (Feb 2009) shows that Real Trees are better. It also mentions driving out to a tree farm as the only negative about getting a real tree. They say it would take 20 years of driving a considerable distance to a tree farm to get close to the same negative impact of a fake tree. Most people only keep a fake tree 6 or 7 years, so that makes a real tree, what 3 times better for the invironment?
Even the Ellipsos study doesn't consider that 70% of real trees are bought in town -- many at the same stores that sell fake trees... or that most fake trees come from China and are shipped half-way around the world. Read for yourself at: http://www.ellipsos.ca/site_files/File/Christmas%20Tree%20LCA%20-%20ellipsos.pdf
Posted by LuvChristmas | September 3, 2009 10:09 AM
Posted on September 3, 2009 10:09
Is this also "patently absurd"? Plastic trees might be part of the energy solution! A British company is developing unique, patented, energy-harvesting artificial trees that combine nanotechnology, biomimicry, recycled plastics and rubber. Read more here: http://www.inthehopper.org/sustainability/plastic-tree-energy-solution
Posted by Barry | September 3, 2009 1:47 PM
Posted on September 3, 2009 13:47
No, it's not surprising. You might want to take a deeper look (beginning with a backlink analysis) at Balsam Hill (not to mention Christmas Tree Market and Treetopia...all the same), Artificial Trees dot com, and the ACTA site. And, you might consider adding a rel=nofollow to your link to the ACTA and their Wikipedia page, otherwise you're just boosting their ranking and legitimacy. No doubt the supposed ACTA will eventually be linking to Balsam Hill and Co...
Posted by Robert | October 6, 2009 8:11 AM
Posted on October 6, 2009 08:11