During the 2010 holiday season, the New York Times reported artificial tree yearly sales were expected to reach a new record of 13 million trees sold. It reported the increase was due to improved quality and convenience as many trees easily collapse and come with built-in lights. The number of artificial trees used during the holidays surpasses natural trees by about 20 million. But which tree is better for the environment?
Citing a study by Ellipsos, a Montreal environmental consulting firm, the article reports that real trees are better for the environment overall and an artificial tree would need to be reused for more than 20 years as opposed to using a natural tree each year. The study’s calculations included human health impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and use of resources. But results would likely differ among cities and regions and an artificial may be the “greener” choice where the average amount of car travel to purchase a natural tree outweighs the energy and pollution costs of buying an artificial tree. The article also cited a carbon footprint study by the American Christmas Tree Association (ACTA), an artificial tree maker and retailer trade group, which found fake trees to be better for the environment after only 10 years.
But the article states that scales are tipped in favor of natural trees as the more environmentally friendly option because of the way they are grown and harvested. The trees produce oxygen, fix carbon in their branches and the soil, and supply bird and animal habitat. Tree farms also help preserve farmland and green space. After use, the trees can be composted or mulched whereas artificial trees are not recyclable and often end up in landfills.
Ellipsos and the ACTA agree, however, that both kinds of trees do not impact the environment as much as other every day activities, such as driving a car, and an artificial tree’s impact can be compensated for by exchanging only a few days of carpooling or riding a bicycle.
