Real trees need to be cut down every year. Fake trees can be reused. Real trees are biodegradable. Fake tress are not (as far as i know). Real trees need water. Fake do not. Real trees need to be transported from they are grown every year. Fake only need to be transported once, but from a further distance such as china. Real trees are often painted/colored after they are cut. Fake are not. ‘Making’ real tress takes pollutants out of the air. Making fake trees put pollutants in the air. When the season is done, you throw away real trees and pack away fake ones. (when fake trees are disposed they go into the landfill) With all factors taken into consideration, what is better for the environment? Real of fake christmas trees?
Enjoy More Christmas Related Blogs;
- Stinky Tress? « Sharmamridul's Blog
- Artificial Christmas Trees ? as good as the Real Thing | Analogue and Digital
- Filling the Season with Fun and Laughter through Prelit Artificial Christmas Trees
- China: The World’s Next Great Consumer Society | The Big Picture
- Landfill Makes History … Again | Madison County Courier-Madison County News
- Implementation of a new landfill facility was out of the control of the Municipality : Kaieteur News
- Comparison of diesel emissions and petrol pollutants among SUVs, Jairam ramesh on SUVs in India | DWS Auto India
- Creative Christmas Trees & Stands | The Inspired Room
- WikiLeaked Diplomatic Cables Confirm China’s Politburo Was Behind Google Hacking Incident
- Chezza To Take A Long Christmas Break! | PerezHilton.com
Tags: china, Christmas, Christmas Trees, fake trees, landfill, pollutants, tress
6 responses to What's better for the environment? Real or Fake christmas trees?
The fake ones, since, over the course of several years, more pollutants would probably be put into transporting the real trees than in the manufacturing of the fake ones.
In many countries (including Canada), the real Christmas trees you buy are farmed, they are not wild trees being harvested.
They take less energy to grow (fake trees are manufactured so they use energy to make them, which contributes to greenhouse gases) and can (and in many places are) sent to compost.
Ultimately, a real tree is a renewable recycling product, a fake tree is not.
You would need to keep a fake tree for about 20 years to make it more environmentally friendly than a real tree. Real trees are farmed like crops, they don’t take away forests, while they are growing they clean the air and take away CO2. If you don’t flock them or put individual tinsel on them they can be chipped for compost. A fake tree is made from PVC and can’t be recycled, PVC is toxic to produce and toxic when it breaks down. The average lifespan for a fake tree is 6 years. It is best to find a tree farm near your home instead of one that is shipped from several states away to reduce the transportation impacts.
plastic – you can have it 20-30-40 or more years
the best would be just pleasant memories of Christmas past – and no trees – unless you have little kids – they get a BIG kick out of the lights.
Oh – also – if you have the courage – what’s the prettiest are candles on the tree! Oh man. Lots of tinsel and candles. You can make the candle holders out of tin foil.
This is only a personal opinion, Its probably better to get a fake tree which you will be able to use for several years and if you don’t want it you can pass it on, and you will be saving a real tree from being cut, or at least not endorse people who cut down real trees and sell it just so that it can be used for a month in their living room then just throw it away after Christmas.
Leave a reply to What's better for the environment? Real or Fake christmas trees?