.
December 14, 2009
Christine Harms
As part of the current environmental revolution, many people strive to incorporate as many eco-friendly products into their daily lives as possible. The purchase of a Christmas tree this holiday season is no exception. The debate between the use of real versus artificial trees has been raging.
There is no clear benefit of one type over the other. People generally associate the purchase of live trees with killing trees and deforestation, but it is a common practice for Christmas tree farms to plant three trees for each removed. The replacement trees offset the stored carbon dioxide released when a tree is cut down. Christmas tree farms plant trees on land that would otherwise be bare, providing the land with protection from soil erosion. The remains of trees can be turned into mulch to return nutrients to the soil.
However, there are drawbacks to live trees. Some people think that it is a waste of a tree to display it in their houses for a month and then throw it to the curb. When the trees are grown hundreds—even thousands—of miles away, it takes a great deal of energy and unclean fuel to transport trees into people’s living rooms. Also, trees are often treated with pesticides, which eventually seep into wells and groundwater.
Artificial trees have come a long way since their original production by a toilet brush company in the 1960s. They come in all sizes and even with pre-hung lights, taking the hassle out of decorating. They last for years and save money in the long-run.
Because fake trees are made from plastic and metal, you can be sure that your tree will never decompose in a landfill. Many trees are produced in China, which require a great deal more transportation than a real tree would. Thus, they have a huge carbon footprint. And of course, there is no substitute to the fresh pine scent that a real tree can only provide.
