Post by Bonobo on Feb 6, 2020 14:07:45 GMT 1
I found an interesting article which encourages readers to reconsider their traditional views on Christmas.
www.politico.eu/article/how-christmas-is-ruining-the-planet/
Let`s see and comment on some of its thesis:
2. Controversial Christmas trees
Real or fake is an evergreen dilemma.
According to Carbon Trust, a real Christmas tree has a “significantly lower” carbon footprint than an artificial tree, especially if it is disposed of properly. The organization calculated that a natural 2-meter-tall Christmas tree that is disposed of into a landfill has a footprint of around 16 kilograms of CO2, thanks to methane emissions as it rots. A tree that is disposed of by burning, replanting or chipping it has a footprint of around 3.5kg of CO2.
A 2-meter Christmas tree made from plastic, on the other hand, has a carbon footprint of around 40kg of CO2 due to the energy-intensive production processes, while a real pine or fir tree naturally absorbs CO2 and releases oxygen before it's chopped down. This means that owners of an artificial tree need to use it for at least a decade in order for its environmental impact to equal that of responsibly disposed natural trees.
My comment: hmm, it would be really bad for the environment if people bought and discarded new plastic trees every year. Is it so in reality? I don`t think so. We bought our artificial tree in 2004 and have been using it ever since. I don`t like real ones coz they look dead stupid at the end of January and what is worse, lose their needles everywhere. When I had real ones, I found the needles all over the flat. Taking the dead tree out also causes problems coz you need to clean the staircase and lift afterwards.
So, 16 Christmases with a natural tree would cost the planet much more than the same time with the same plastic one. And we are going to use it even longer coz it looks good.
www.politico.eu/article/how-christmas-is-ruining-the-planet/
Let`s see and comment on some of its thesis:
2. Controversial Christmas trees
Real or fake is an evergreen dilemma.
According to Carbon Trust, a real Christmas tree has a “significantly lower” carbon footprint than an artificial tree, especially if it is disposed of properly. The organization calculated that a natural 2-meter-tall Christmas tree that is disposed of into a landfill has a footprint of around 16 kilograms of CO2, thanks to methane emissions as it rots. A tree that is disposed of by burning, replanting or chipping it has a footprint of around 3.5kg of CO2.
A 2-meter Christmas tree made from plastic, on the other hand, has a carbon footprint of around 40kg of CO2 due to the energy-intensive production processes, while a real pine or fir tree naturally absorbs CO2 and releases oxygen before it's chopped down. This means that owners of an artificial tree need to use it for at least a decade in order for its environmental impact to equal that of responsibly disposed natural trees.
My comment: hmm, it would be really bad for the environment if people bought and discarded new plastic trees every year. Is it so in reality? I don`t think so. We bought our artificial tree in 2004 and have been using it ever since. I don`t like real ones coz they look dead stupid at the end of January and what is worse, lose their needles everywhere. When I had real ones, I found the needles all over the flat. Taking the dead tree out also causes problems coz you need to clean the staircase and lift afterwards.
So, 16 Christmases with a natural tree would cost the planet much more than the same time with the same plastic one. And we are going to use it even longer coz it looks good.
