As the holiday season approaches, homes all over are being filled with Christmas decorations– lights, garlands, nutcrackers, and, of course, Christmas trees. This presents a decision: real or fake? Many are split between choosing a real or artificial tree, whether it be for financial, convenience, environmental, or other reasons, and after hearing conflicting information, it’s time to bring out the data.

First on the list is all of the non-environmental concerns. While artificial trees are typically more expensive than real ones, they are reusable, and if they last for multiple years, they can easily surpass real trees in value. Additionally, they are more convenient, as they can just be taken out of the box and assembled, sometimes with the lights already on. However, this eliminates some of the appeal of a Christmas tree, including the fresh scent or tradition of going to a farm and picking out the best tree for a home. Each option offers appealing traits that might cater to some more than others, and that may be enough for some to make their decision, but some prefer to consider environmental impact before picking their tree.

Christmas trees are planted and grown for about a decade, until they are of the desired size to be taken home, and there is debate on whether harvesting them at this young age is beneficial for carbon absorption. A study published on the USDA website found that older trees sequestered more carbon than small trees, but were less efficient per unit of space, so “their importance relative to small trees declined in older stands compared to younger stands.” However, CBC news (which is rated to have a high factual reporting) conducted a study that concluded that older trees “store more carbon in proportion to their size,” with evidence that “almost 70 per cent of all the carbon stored in trees is accumulated in the last half of their lives.” It is not clear whether old or young trees are more efficient at capturing CO2, but either way it seems like growing and harvesting real trees is a net positive.

Although real trees emit carbon as they decompose after the holiday season, the carbon they release is less than what they store. A study published by onetreeplanted.org monitored CO2 absorption from multiple types of trees for the first 20 years of its life, and although it included multiple varieties, the data for pine trees falls in line with the other species. The study found that “the average tree absorbs an average of 10 kilograms, or 22 pounds, of carbon dioxide per year,” which is more than the average “3.5kg of carbon dioxide” released when sent to “a wood chipper or bonfire,” and close to the “16kg of carbon dioxide” emitted if it are sent to a landfill, according to earth.org. Since the trees are typically grown for around ten years, they are certainly storing more carbon than they release according to the data, though the emission study should be repeated with specifically Christmas varieties for a more accurate conclusion. That being said, although real trees may absorb more carbon than they emit, it should be noted that they require resources such as water, land, and transportation.

Fake trees definitely release more CO2 than real ones, with “a two metre-tall artificial tree” emitting “40kg should it be discarded” (Real vs Fake Christmas Tree: Comparing The Environmental Impact). Their significant impact is due to their production, with plastic typically made from fossil fuels, and transportational factors. According to The Nature Conservancy, “around 10 million artificial trees are purchased” every year in the US, and “90% of them are shipped across the world from China.” The environmental impact of producing and shipping plastic trees across the planet are far from negligible, and it is hard to argue that they are a better option than real trees.

This holiday season, keep in mind that real trees are a more eco-conscious option, but know that they are not the only one; most of the unfortunate byproducts of artificial trees are countered if they are purchased secondhand. For those that prefer the convenience and affordability of fake trees, the both the carbon impact and cost are decreased when they are bought from someone else. A home can be adorned with a real tree, a reused tree, or no tree at all, and still reflect a good choice for the environment.

I’ve been wanting to write this Synopsis on Christmas trees since last year, and I’m glad it’s finally here!

I’ve heard a lot of discourse over what the best Christmas tree option is for the environment, and I was surprised to find even more disagreement online as I researched this topic. It was unfortunate that there was no strong scientific case that the whole internet followed, and I kind of had to make my own conclusion as I looked over the data. I think my argument makes sense, but of course, you will find contrasting statements online, so take everything with a grain of salt. Maybe this year you should decorate a living tree outside!

Next week is the big one: my tuberculosis essay! So watch out, and stay tuned to learn with me!

CBC News (Canadian Broadcasting) – Bias and Credibility

CBC News (Canadian Broadcasting) – Bias and Credibility

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/how-old-trees-help-climate-1.4252888

https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/protect-water-and-land/land-and-water-stories/real-vs-fake-christmas-tree/

https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/52237#

https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-much-co2-does-tree-absorb

Real vs Fake Christmas Tree: Which One Is Better for the Environment?

Real vs Fake Christmas Tree: Which One Is Better for the Environment?