We’ve worked hard all year, trying our best to be green, to cut our overtaxed planet some slack.


We’ve put CFL bulbs in everywhere, tightened up our windows and doors, insulated, cut back on our showers, walk or bike whenever we can, buy local, eat mostly veggies and recycle everything we possibly can. Now it’s holiday time and we’re wondering what we’re supposed to do about a tree.

Shouldn’t we just go out to our local tree farm, with kids in tow, pick out a nice one and bring it home strapped to the roof in a ritual that harks back to our hunter-gatherer days? Don’t you think the sweet balsam smell intermingling with our morning coffee, will help tighten up our bond with Ol’ Ma Earth and guarantee that our kids will grow up loving the planet and the trees that keep her viable as a place that living things can thrive upon? Surely that must be the way to go. Sure there’s the fuel used to get out and get the tree every year, but how big of a deal is that?

Would we be better serve the planet, perhaps, by buying an artificial tree once and then using it over and over again? That’s what Jean Eadie, an 85-year-old widow from Scotland does. In fact, it’s what she’s been doing since she was three years old. "It's been a constant companion for me since I was little. My husband died in 1991 and I don't have a lot of friends left. I know it sounds silly, but every year when I unwrap it I wish it happy birthday." Now that’s what I call a tradition. Mrs. Eadie told the Scottish Sun, “"My mum fell out with me when I put a fairy on top one year, but it's been there for 70-odd years

Paul Parker has an even older tree. His was purchased in 1886 around the time that “everlasting Christmas tree alternatives” were first made available. The tiny tree has been in his family for three generations, though he’s only recently started displaying it again. It has been verified by the Guinness Book of World Records as the oldest ornamental Christmas tree in the world.

Meanwhile, green pundits continue to debate over which is the greenest tree. One columnist in Portland, after comparing the issue to that of women’s breasts, gave the overall green edge to real, but only after conceding that artificial trees win out when it comes to price, convenience, and personal health (i.e. allergies). I suppose one could also add that they tend to remain perkier over the years.

A study by the American Christmas Tree Association, on the other hand, gave the prize to artificial trees. The study was done on a cradle-to-grave analysis over a ten-year period. It compared six-foot trees grown locally with six-foot artificial trees grown in China and shipped overseas. Curiously, the study found that the biggest impact came from driving out to a tree farm, due to the fuel consumed. Apparently, the difference in distance between your local tree farm and China was overcome by the efficiencies of scale in transoceanic cargo transport and the lighter weight of the artificial trees. Either that or they assumed that a “local” tree farm was quite a significant distance away.  The distances used were not disclosed on the website, nor were the association’s sponsors. They did point out that artificial trees are only advantaged if they are kept for ten years or longer.

The association also notes on their website that the first known Christmas tree was decorated in Riga, Latvia, in the year 1510, exactly 500 years ago this year.

Finally, a detailed Life Cycle Assessment study done by ellipsos, a Montreal-based consultancy is documented in a 91-page report. The paper, which describes the damage imparted to: human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and resources, based on fourteen independent midpoint categories including human toxicity, ozone layer depletion, aquatic eutrophication, global warming and mineral extraction and others, came to the following conclusions:

“The natural tree is a better option than the artificial tree, in particular with respect to impacts on climate change (3.1 kg CO2/year vs. 8.1 kg/year) and resource depletion. The natural tree, however, is not a perfect solution as it results in important impacts on ecosystem quality. Clients who prefer using the artificial tree can reduce their impacts on all categories by increasing the life span of their tree, ideally over 20 years.”

It should be pointed out, to keep these numbers in perspective, that the impact of purchasing these trees is equivalent to driving 78 miles for the natural tree, or 200 miles for the artificial one.

So my suggestion is to figure out a way to eliminate that amount of driving over the course of a year and then enjoy your holiday!

RP Siegel is the co-author of the eco-thriller Vapor Trails.

Like airplanes, we all leave behind a vapor trail. And though can we can easily see others’, we rarely see our own.

Follow RP Siegel on Twitter.