One artificial tree used for one year has greater environmental impact than one natural tree. However, an artificial tree can also be re-used over a number of years. Thus, there is some crossover point, if the artificial tree is used for long enough, that its environmental effect is less than an annual series of trees. For example, the ellipsos study finds that an artificial tree would need to be used for 20 years before its greenhouse gas effects would be less than those of an annual series of natural trees. The PE Americas study offers a wide range of scenarios, and summarizes, but here is the situation “for the base case when individual car transport distance for tree purchase is 2.5 miles each way. Because the natural tree provides an environmental benefit in terms of Global Warming Potential when landfilled, and Eutrophication Potential when composted or incinerated, there is no number of years one can keep an artificial tree in order to match the natural tree impacts in these cases. … For all other scenarios, the artificial tree has less impact provided it is kept and reused for a minimum between 2 and 9 years, depending upon the environmental indicator chosen.”
I think that it is hopeless to try to do these sorts of estimates. For one thing, note that if everyone bought artificial trees, then there would be fewer Christmas tree farms.
Are there artificial trees that can pass a Turing test? Do they smell like a tree? Do they have interesting asymmetries? If not, then it would seem as though artificial trees would be less fun to decorate.
“Are there artificial trees that can pass a Turing test? Do they smell like a tree? Do they have interesting asymmetries?”
No, no, and no. Especially the smell. The answers are the same for plastic trees as for plastic flowers.
“If not, then it would seem as though artificial trees would be less fun to decorate.”
Yep. But of course the plastic ones are much more convenient.
These kinds of analyses make me roll my eyes. A Christmas tree is a rounding error compared to the rest of a household’s annual consumption. It just doesn’t matter.
Crikey, don’t they sell pine-smelling car deodorizers that one could stick in an invisible spot on a plastic tree? …for to complete the fake ambiance?
Signed, Christmas Curmudgeon.
Of course, for the ultimate in economic analysis of the holidays, see Joel Waldfogel, “The Deadweight Loss of Christmas,” American Economic Review, 1995. (Widely available on the Web via Google or JSTAR.)
If you are aiming for the sine qua non of an environmentally friendly Christmas tree, of course, you can always decorate a living tree… without bringing it indoors.
We have concluded that our real trees exacerbate our allergies and suspect this causes colds. So we finally went with the polymer pine solution.
Ok, so this feels a little bit more than awkward, but here goes…
From a non-believing Christian to a (probable) non-believing Jew.
Yes, for the right price, the artificial trees more than pass the Turing test. We have been using one from Target since 2006.
Doesn’t smell authentic enough? Stop by your local car wash and pick up one of those scent trees.
Happy Holidays!