Having just posted our Five Friday Facts about Christmas, and the ensuing discussion about buying a live tree or a fake one that can be re-used, the notion that live trees are a renewable resource was brought about in order to suggest that this made them the better choice. Cost aside ($50 a tree for 20 years or $5 for an after Christmas sale at Target), live trees are renewable, yes, and fake ones are reusable. However, both have serious issues associated with them. Just because trees are renewable, does not mean that they are sustainable. The devil is in the details.
How a resource is managed becomes the key factor in the decision. At a local Whole Foods, a sign was posted stating that two trees would be planted for every one that is sold. This type of transaction suggests that the resource – Christmas trees in this case – is being managed sustainably. In other words, there will be plenty of trees for future consumption. In fact, the population will grow exponentially, roughly doubling each year (assuming the same number of trees are sold year after year). On the other hand, that $5 fake tree from Target, while reusable, contains potentially toxic materials, not to mention the fact that the plastics are petroleum derived products and it will not breakdown for future generations.
The decision is not an easy one. Economic factors, especially in difficult times, play a large role in decision making. Assuming the $50 annual cost of purchasing a tree is valid – which obviously depends on your location – the life time out of pocket expense for a 20 year period (not adjusting for price increases) is $1000. That same after season plastic tree may last 20 years, for the five dollars and storage space. Unfortunately these decisions are rarely this simple. In fact, they are fraught with emotion, tradition, customs, and cultural significance.
[image source: Amazon]
Posted in 
