Plastic or Pine? The Most Sustainable Tree for the Holidays

By: Malyce Collins

So you want to make your holiday more sustainable - hurray! One way to incorporate sustainability into your holidays as being intentional with your purchase if you’re considering buying a holiday tree. 

The TL;DR answer is real trees are better. However, there are pros and cons to both! Here are some additional factors to consider:

Farm or Factory

Throughout the “life” of a fake tree, its production accounts for about 70% of all its related greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the two primary components of fake trees are steel and PVC, both materials being energy-intensive in production and PVC production involving significant pollution. 

On the other hand, real trees grow primarily on monoculture farms, which tend to be harmful in terms of biodiversity. However, as they grow, they absorb CO2 rather than emit it, and it is estimated that, depending upon such factors as tree type and growing conditions, an entire ton of CO2 is absorbed for every one acre of a tree farm. 

Locally Sourced or the Long Haul 

In the US alone, about 85% of all artificial trees purchased were manufactured in and shipped from China. And then, after the trees are trucked from the factory to a port, they’re shipped across the ocean on a cargo vessel, then placed on another truck to be hauled to a store before the consumer finally drives it home, equating to over 8,400 miles traveled. That journey emits about 9 pounds of CO2, which may not sound like a lot until you consider that this is equal to driving a car for 10 miles. And that’s just one artificial tree. 

Meanwhile, because non-artificial trees can die, they cannot be transported over long distances, so they’re usually only transported for about 230 miles. Real trees’ journeys typically involve traveling from the seed production site, to a nursery, to a farm, to the retailer or individual seller, and then to the consumer’s home, which is, on average, only about 5 to 7 miles away. Despite such a low mileage, this travel accounts for nearly 50% of the tree’s total carbon footprint, as it had traveled more efficiently, with other trees, beforehand. Overall, the tree still has a net sink of greenhouse gases, so long as the distance traveled from point of sale to the home is ten miles or less. However, should the trip be greater than 10 miles, then the tree is a net source of emissions. Nevertheless, the remaining portion of its life may allow it to still retain a smaller footprint than that of a fake tree. 

Burned, Recycled, or Thrown Away

One benefit of artificial trees is that there’s no worry of them dying and shedding its dried, dead needles all over the floor if you don’t remove it in time. You can take fake trees down and put them away whenever you feel like it and then put it back up again the next year. The convenience and reusability of artificial trees draws many to thinking that they’re the better choice. Because the tree is reusable, its emissions from production and transportation can be spread out over the years it’s used. But there’s a catch. Assuming you drive six miles total, to and from the retailer, to obtain a fake tree, that tree would then need to be used for at least 20 years before it can equalize the greenhouse gas emissions of 20 real trees. Unfortunately, most artificial trees don’t last that long - they are typically disposed of in only six years. And then it enters the landfill, with the dump truck hauling the tree emitting even more carbon emissions.

Real trees must exit the home and be replaced each year, but the options for disposal are varied, with some being more sustainable than others. Methods of disposal include sending to the landfill, burning, recycling, and composting. The first is the least sustainable option, as it not only involves carbon emissions in its being hauled to the landfill but it also decomposes much slower there and emits methane, a greenhouse gas, as a byproduct due to its anaerobic conditions. Burning is not much better, as the fire also releases greenhouse gas. On the other hand, recycling and composting trees are much more sustainable options. Composted trees turn into nutrient-rich soil that can be used for gardening, while recycled trees are used for a variety of purposes: mulch for landscaping and gardening, chips for playgrounds and hiking trails, stabilization of lake and river shorelines, beachfront erosion prevention, and habitat for wildlife. 

Conclusion

This far from an exhaustive list of benefits and drawbacks of both types of trees, as we zeroed in on the climate impact of the trees’ lifespans. But experts do agree that real trees, despite their drawbacks, are generally better than artificial. If you’re still not satisfied and you really want a sustainable holiday but can’t forego the tree, then consider renting a live tree or buying one that is potted and then planting it or donating it to a local park for it to be planted at the end of the holiday season. Regardless of the choice you make, Sustainable Campus wishes you a happy and sustainable holiday!

FSU Sustainable Campus seeks to have our campus serve as a living model of sustainability by providing learning experiences that students, faculty, and staff may develop, apply, and practice at FSU and in their extended communities. Stay up to date with FSU Sustainable Campus and the programs on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Sign up for the newsletter here.

Write for us! If you’re interested in sustainability and wish to submit content to our blog, please email your idea to mpresley2@fsu.edu with "Blog Pitch" in your email subject line.  

References

https://www.sightline.org/2015/12/21/your-christmas-trees-carbon-footprint/ 

https://earth911.com/home-garden/real-vs-artificial-christmas-trees/

https://www.greenamerica.org/blog/how-green-your-christmas-tree