For years, my family had a potted Christmas tree. We'd drag it into the house for Christmas, and the rest of the year, it hung out in the back yard. It was a good five feet and required only watering and an occasional pruning. (Eventually, we pruned the top to keep it from growing any taller.) It was fine inside the house for the several weeks around Christmas, and also fine outside for the rest of the year. (This was in Los Angeles.)

This might be more practical than having to plant a Christmas tree in the backyard every year, where space is limited.

A tree that's used year after year in this way, eventually becomes like an old friend, and a familiar part of the holidays.

I must say that a fake Christmas tree isn't always bad. Knowing how most people would use it for a year or two then throw it away, I would encourage people to use a real Christmas tree. However, my family is on it's 22nd year of using the exact same fake Christmas tree, and it's looking just fine. Perhaps even 22 years of use isn't enough to outweight the environmental damage, but it's worked out well for us. Hopefully we'll get in another 22 years or so.

People do not realize that fake Christmas Trees are not made in the USA. They are made in China, Taiwan, Malaysia, etc. They use a lot of harmful chemicals in the making of these trees.
For the first time, we bought a fake Christmas tree last year since we have been retired since 1993 and are up in age. Well...I was a real sick lady almost all of 2006 due to an allergic skin reaction to these chemicals. I lost one year of the quality years I have left in life. They grown a lot of Frasier Fur trees here in NC. They are just great...we threw the $400 fake tree out and got another wonderful locally grown tree to help the NC economy.....I usually do not comment over the web but this was the worst condition I experienced in my 66+ years....I was a basket case!! I invite everyone to search the web to see how fake trees are made and the chemicals they use to make them. Merry Christmas to All and Thank You....Nancy Cox

Instead of people "throwing out" fake Christmas trees, they should donate it - I've heard of organizations who collect trees that are used for families that are less fortunate. We have a fake tree now.. however I am looking towards doing the potted thing.

We found our fake christmas tree by the side of the road. Someone threw it out last year. So we dragged it home, cleaned off the tinsel, and set it up. It's fine, and now is no longer heading to the local landfill.

Hi all,

Our family has gotten a live Christmas tree for the past seven years. I love the live tree, but every year we have a very difficult time finding a place that is willing to take it. This year is no execption. I have been turned down by the LA Conservation Corps, LA County Tree Farm, TreePeople, Treecyclers, and Northeast Trees. In the past, we have resorted to planting the tree in various parks (without permission, I should add). We have even begged a local nursery to take it for free. Needless to say, I am very interested in continuing the tradition of having a live tree, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to get rid of it. I am in Los Angeles, and I am open to any suggestions. Sadly, I do not have a backyard sufficient for holding our tree.

Thanks,
Kevin

As you can see in this blog - many people with Artificial Christmas Trees have them for over a decade - it is a myth to believe that a real Christmas Tree will be put in to a compost pile and turn back into soil. Many live Christmas trees go into landfills where they just grow into bigger piles. Think how much smaller landfills would be if everyone bought a high quality Fake Tree.


There are lot's of things in the world made out of the same products that go into making an artificial Christmas tree - but few that people keep for 20 years.

I aim to have a real living tree this year and all those to come. This past weekend I bought a 2 foot tall dwarf alberta spruce tree and a large Terra Cotta pot.... It'll be patio landscaping at my place year round except for Christmas time when the whole thing will move indoors and be decorated.

These apparenlty grow quite slowly, and max out at 6 feet tall - which work perfectly for me!

While the pesticides are a real issue, as well as the carbon emissions from transportation i think real Christmas trees offer many more benefits than fake trees.

There is of course the political aspect that, real trees give Americans jobs as tree farmers. Chinese made trees don't help our economy, they just send money and jobs out of the country. Hrmm, too bad we cant ship those trees back out of the country when we don't want them anymore.

Chemicals aside a real Christmas tree is the better option. Even in a landfill, at least the tree bio-degrades. Plastic doesn't; ever. And children don't die from eating real Christmas tree needles. Fake ones have lead and other harmful chemicals.

The simple fact is that it's a lesser of two evils because there is no %100 environmentally friendly option. I'd choose real Christmas trees over fake ones any day.

Great article. Luckily, I live in an area where I can cut down my own tree and now I will.

BTW, another reason to steer clear of fake plastic trees is that those made in China contain lead in them and aren't a safe or healthy option - especially if you have young kids that might put pieces of the tree in their mouths. That may be what the Grist article elaborated on.

Good Point Mommy Off The record. Having tiny shreds of lead covered needles around young children is a terrible mistake. And since the whole tainted toy problem in China do we really want to further contribute to their poor standards of production.

I apologies, but I have to say this article did not help me at all. Saying that the concern about chopping down a tree is because a tree is killed is a red herring. The problem with buying a tree each year is the energy consumed in that process:

1. Tree is cut down at Christmas Tree Farm.
2. Tree is shipped by truck to Christmas Tree store.
3. Shopper drives to Christmas Tree store to buy their tree.
4. At end, Tree is hauled away and then chopped up.
5. Multiply this process by at least 10 times (fake trees are easily used for at least 10 years).

Compare this to a fake tree:
1. Fake tree is created using toxic chemicals in China.
2. Shipped by boat (far more environmentally friendly than truck) to U.S.
3. Shipped to store.
4. Shopper drives to pick it up.
5. At end of life span (at least 10 years later) it is potentially tossed in a landfill.

What I would like to know is a true study of what the difference is. Clearly there is far more CO2 going into the air in the first example than the latter. The question is: How damaging is the fake tree creation and tossing it into a landfil compared to the significant amount of CO2 put into the air by buying a tree every year?

I am not certain it is quite as easy to dismiss this as 'clearly the real tree is better because -- it is a real tree'. There is more to this question, and it would be nice if we could determine what the real answer is.

If I had a real tree, the health care system would have been used much more for 42 years due to allergies or less depending on if breathing is necessary. Used to get sick every Christmas when we had a real tree. Our artificial trees have lasted a long time. Only on our second tree in 35 years. We have real trees in back yard and in pots. At one house we had about 15 trees in a city corner lot house. Plant a tree in your neighbourhood, but also support diversity in vegetation.

Monty, you're overlooking one very significant thing. Look at your #3 entry for artificial trees: "shipped to store." How do you think the artificial tree is "shipped"? Answer: by truck! Both artificial and natural trees travel by truck to the point of sale. What's more, the artifical trees as a group travel much farther by truck . While many natural trees are trucked all over the country (to places where conifers don't grow), many other natural trees are locally grown and sold, so truck shipments from these growers to the point of sale are short. In contrast, ALL artifical trees must be trucked long distances from ports on the west coast to stores all over the rest of the country.

Add to that the emissions of the ships that have to carry the artificial trees 6,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean to the western coast of the US. Natural trees don't have this additional international shipping ON TOP of the domestic trucking that both types of trees involve.

So all in all, tree for tree, artifical trees produce FAR more pollution in transportation than do natural trees. However, the fact that many people keep and continue to use a single artifical tree for 10, even 20 years (or more), while real trees are usually replaced every year, the total pollution due to transportation of both types of trees may be fairly evenly split between the two types. Overall, it might even favor artificial trees.

But there's another concern with artifical trees: the pollution caused by their manufacture and eventual disposal. You don't have that with real trees, unless they are burned (most are mulched or land-filled). On the other hand, the growing of real trees often produces a different kind of pollution, due to excessive fertilizer and pesticide use. And while growing trees consume carbon dioxide, small young trees consume far less than old, large trees, so the constant gowing, cutting, and replanting of new small trees doesn't reduce carbon dioxide nearly as much as if those trees were never cut and allowed to continue to grow.

Considering all factors, I don't think anyone can conclusively state that either Christmas tree option (natural or artificial) is any more "green" than the other overall. Everyone has opinions and arguments, but I've yet to see a study providing proof that could conclusively answer the question.

The best answer I've seen is of course the potted live tree that can be reused year after year, just like an artifical tree, but it's not a practical option for most people (especially those who live in climates where the potted tree would not survive the rest of the year, and those who are physically unable to haul the potted tree in and out of the house).

There's also the problem of fire hazards - real trees are flammable and easily ignited if not kept moist, whereas well-made artificial trees are flame-resistant and flame retardant. Every year there are hundreds of home fires caused by live trees that ignite, but few to none involving artificial trees. On the other hand, most live trees used as Christmas trees are not in and of themselves toxic (although some are), whereas all artifical trees contain potential toxins (some worse than others, depending on their manufacture). Neither live nor artifical will hurt you by touching them, but both are potentially harmful if ingested or inhaled.

So again, which is better, safer, and more ecological? Seems like a wash to me.

Monty,

What you are wanting is typically referred to as an Environmental Impact Study. We have been looking at ways to have one done for years, unfortunately they are very expensive.

It would involve much more than you even pointed out here. You are starting in the middle of the process on fake trees. The factory in China where the fake tree is assembled is the middle. The sheets of PVC are produced in a separate factory (and production of PVC releases dioxin into the atmosphere) then have to be shipped/hauled/transported to the assembly factory. The metals used to hold the PVC strips to make "branches" first have to be mined from the earth and then transported to the assembly factory. How much energy is consumed during all those processes for the raw materials used in the product?

Conversely, I recently had a medium-sized Choose and Cut Christmas Tree farm in Louisiana keep track of fuel used in a typical year. He uses 600 gallons of fuel per year (gasoline and diesel) for farm equipment, to produce 14,000 trees. That's 5.5 ounces of fuel per tree per year. That's probably a little higher than average because farms in the south require more mowing of grasses and weeds than northern ones do. Nonetheless, I'd be willing to bet that a computation of feul consumed to produce fake trees in factories is much higher than 5.5 ounces per year.

As for shipping, sure, for pre-cut trees at lots, a freight truck or train is required. How is that different for real trees than fake trees? Fake trees have to be transported from a shipping port in San Diego or Los Angeles to a store near you. 18 wheelers hauling real trees don't use more fuel than 18 wheelers hauling boxes of fake trees.

Other notes:
-the person who said most farm-grown trees end up in landfills is wrong. In most states, they can't...by law. Yard waste and plant material is not allowed. Consumers have reported in polls that 93% recycle their tree in a community program.
-a study was recently conducted at North Carolina State University measuring the amount of carbon stored in the trees at a Christmas Tree farm. It is equivalent to 7.4 metric tons of CO2 per acre, and that's only the plant tissue mass above ground, not including the root mass below. There's about 450,000 total acres planted in Christmas Trees in the U.S., which means Christmas Tree farms are sequestering at least 3.3 billion metric tons of CO2. How much carbon is sequestered by fake trees?
-fake trees can be used for a number of years...one guy even commented he has had his for 22 years. That's great. We've got to think longer term here guys. The average household uses a fake tree for 6-9 years. Sooner or later, even the guy who uses one for 22 years, will throw it away. Yes, even if you donate it to someone, it will STILL EVENTUALLY BE THROWN AWAY. The materials in a fake tree are non-biodegadable. They never decompose. Future generations will have landfills full of the fake trees we are using now, whether you use one for 6 years or 22. Think long-term.

The best way to learn about Christmas Trees is to take a part-time job this Winter or Spring at a farm and help with the planting. U.S. growers are going to plant an estimated 40 million new trees in 2008 to replace those harvested and to try to grow their businesses.

The only problem I see with a real tree, besides getting that sticky stuff on your hands, is that we have been convinced by Madison Avenue that Christams lasts from Thanksgiving to New Years. Having an electrified dead pine tree in your home that long is a major fire hazzard.
Also, I see the environmental problems with fake trees, but since I already HAVE one, I think the best thing I can do is use it for as many years as it will last and then re-address this issue.
Here is anoher idea. a Chritmas tree should be an evergreeen, but not necessarily a conifer. One year, when money was tight, we just decorated the ficus that was in the living room already.

I'm not understanding the debate that is only between fake vs. dead "real" tree. There are a lot of options with the potted live tree. I'm sorry for the chap who can't find anyone to take his live trees, but we've not had a problem in 14+ years of having a potted tree. We've planted them in our own yard when we lived in a place that had room, we've donated them to charity organizations, and we've given them to friends who have room on their property. We even gave our daughter's friend a tree for her 8th birthday (after checking with her parents), and she loved the idea of receiving a tree! Yes, we have to buy another one every year, but most people buy a new tree every year, and this way I feel like we're helping to plant a forest (if I'm lucky enough to live a long time), not helping to cut an entire forest down (think about how many trees cut down for your Christmas for however many years....just a thought). Definitely worth the money, in my mind (plus it costs the same as a cut tree - ours was $68 this year)! Additional benefits: no fire hazard, no toxic lead or chemicals, and the tree serves as a giant houseplant for the brief time it's in our living room, cleaning the air!! What's not to like?

Why assume all trees have to be PVC? My wife and I bought an old-school aluminum tree on ebay, about 40 years old. We have used it for about 9 years and it looks awesome. The trunk is wood, the branches are wire, and the "needles" are basically tin foil. It looks very cool, especially in our mid-century house. And you can't use Christmas lights - so no carbon footprint!

Why assume all trees have to be PVC? My wife and I bought an old-school aluminum tree on ebay, about 40 years old. We have used it for about 9 years and it looks awesome. The trunk is wood, the branches are wire, and the "needles" are basically tin foil. It looks very cool, especially in our mid-century house. And you can't use Christmas lights - so no carbon footprint!

What happens if you want to be green but are allergic to pine needles? I grew up with the same artificial tree. my parents probably had that tree for 20 years. Always looked fab. I got married and did the real thing for ten years and ALWAYS broke out in a rash on my hands. Even wore gloves. The last real tree fell and nearlly crushed my two year old. Broke several sentimental ornaments too. I've had a nice "fake" tree for five years now and plan on keeping it till it falls apart, just like my parents. Not having a tree is not an option. It's an integral part of our family's preparations and quality family time is spent decorating it. We have ornaments from all our travels and activites. Each ornament has a story. I might add that I never saw either of my children eating the fake needles. I always vaccum around the thing and really how many needles would a kid have to eat to get sick. Really. Toys are totally different because small children spend hours chewing on them. I vote for the fake - if only to keep from iching.

I'm a NYC resident, and if I had a good place to store a fake tree, I'd try to get a used one from freecycle.org, eBay, or craigslist.

I wonder about land use. If tree farmers didn't grow trees, what else would they do? I imagine they'd raise farmed animals, which are incredibly inefficient and contribute more to global warming worldwide than even the transportation sector (according to the UN FAO.) Or they might sell it to developers, who would want to put houses and businesses on it.

I'd be curious to speak to real tree farmers about what they would otherwise do with their land if they didn't farm trees, which soak of CO2...

This debate reminds me of a picture book about a family who's dog eats the Thanksgiving turkey - and they still have a great meal because they realize that being together is what the holiday is about.

I am really puzzled by the extent of this debate. Can't decide between a fake tree or a real one? Not sure which one does more harm to the environment? This is a debate about which is the lesser of two evils. They both pollute, (pesticides, pvc, shipping, landfill,) and a tree is (despite our longstanding family traditions) not a necessity.

In the age of global warming, we have to change/update lots of habits and traditions to reduce our carbon footprint. The tree seems like a good place to start.

Thank you all for your comments. I want to thank 'rejin' for sharing his sober point of view. The tree is a great place to start, and I hope I can make my voice heard and convince my family (in sweaters and slippers in our cool house (conserving energy) that a tree is not what makes the holiday.

If that doesn't work, and after reading the entries here, we have decided to do a potted tree to plant outdoors if we find one. Otherwise, we'll use one of our indoor plants as x-mas tree again.

So, what is next? Gifts? Here is our list with ideas on sustainable gifts for the holidays.

I'd say, go to the nearest Christmas tree farm and go with the healthiest, yet cheapest Christmas tree. Then replant it after Christmas use.

Interesting article, but I think the most satisfying point about purchasing a fresh christmas tree is the authentic tree odor you have in your home.

dont forget this fact
each acre of christmas trees growing on farms produce enough oxygen for 18 people per day
that equates for oxygen for over 190millian people for year. plus the natural habitat it creates for wild life. Now lets see what was it that that fake tre gave back?