Where forest & forestry resources come together for all users!

Sponsored by the Michigan Forest Association and Michigan State University Extension

Environmental Effects of Christmas Trees
Article #203, December 2013
By Bill Cook

The environmental impacts, using life cycle assessment techniques, of real vs. artificial Christmas trees are pretty much even. Like many such analyses, much depends on variable estimates, including personal behavior.

     Which is more environmentally-friendly; a real or artificial Christmas tree? This is certainly a question that has plagued humankind since the murky origins of winter solstice traditions in northern Europe. German Christians are generally tagged as the initiators of this cultural custom, although earlier citations can be found. “Tannenbaum” is a German word for “fir tree”.
     There is a set of “life cycle assessment” protocols that can be applied to almost any consumer product or activity which can illustrate and compare environmental impacts. Inputs and outputs are measured or estimated beginning with extraction, through manufacturing, and then disposal. Some call this “cradle to grave”.
     These protocols undergo regular review and modification to provide increasingly better answers and exploit ever-changing technology. Although for wood products, according to some experts, the protocols need serious tweaking.
     So, what’s the bottom line? Real vs. artificial is a close wash, with some caveats.
     The calculations involve a number of variables that are assigned values. Some values are pretty good averages while others require looser estimation. And then, there are all the assumptions. This is beginning to sound like a mathematics exercise. Well, it is, really.
     So, researchers have actually studied this topic. Carbon and energy were the currencies evaluated. Other impacts were evaluated, too, depending upon the study.
     The American Christmas Tree Association (ACTA) commissioned a study that was published in 2010. ACTA is a manufacturer of artificial trees. The 109 page report is loaded with technical jargon. Just the table of contents is over two pages. Another study (91 pages) was published in 2009 by a consulting firm out of Montreal.
     The ACTA provided a few tips based on their study.
1. If you go natural, try to select locally-grown.
2. Minimize the number of miles driven to acquire the tree. The reports show that driving to get the tree has more impacts than the tree itself.
3. You’ll need to use an artificial tree for 8-9 years before certain benefits exceed those of an annual natural tree.
4. When an artificial tree is replaced, consider donating the old tree.
5. Where possible, dispose of natural trees in re-purposeful ways, such as mulch.
     Of course, in the annual carbon and energy footprint of an average American family, a Christmas tree of either breed is pretty much inconsequential. The choice of real vs. artificial goes beyond just environmental impacts, and those impacts can be highly variable depending on family behavior.
     Buying a real tree from a local tree farm helps area growers stay in business and might slow a bit of urban sprawl. Most artificial trees are made in China but the transportation efficiencies are actually quite high. The studies did not recognize the difference between “fossil” carbon and “biological” carbon, which is an important distinction. Avoiding fossil carbon by using biological carbon has atmospheric advantages that aren’t yet often recognized in life cycle analyses. Real trees rule in this regard, as do forest products.
     How do Americans fall-out in the real vs. artificial debate? The ACTA says that 83 percent of homes that participate in Christmas tree traditions will use an artificial tree. Last year, Americans bought nearly 22 million real Christmas trees and 12 million artificial trees. Some households displayed both. According to the ACTA survey, the average cost for a real tree was $45, and $80 for an artificial tree.
     The most popular real tree choices are true firs, such as balsam and Fraser, followed by Scots pine. However, there is a range of species to suit the desires of most tastes.
     Michigan’s Christmas tree industry is valued at about $50-60 million and is one of the nation’s top producers through selling around three million trees each year. Most of the production is exported.
     The bottom line? Use whatever suits your family’s needs best and however your family likes to engage the Christmas tree tradition. If the environment is important to you, there are much bigger fish to fry than deliberating between a real and artificial Christmas tree.

Trailer
Bill Cook is an MSU Extension forester providing educational programming for the Upper Peninsula. His office is located at the MSU Forest Biomass Innovation Center near Escanaba. The Center is the headquarters for three MSU Forestry properties in the U.P., with a combined area of about 8,000 acres. He can be reached at cookwi@msu.edu or 906-786-1575.

Prepared by Bill Cook, Forester/Biologist, Michigan State University Extension, 6005 J Road, Escanaba, MI 49829
906-786-1575 (voice), 906-786-9370 (fax), e-mail: cookwi@msu.edu

Use / reprinting of these articles is encouraged. Please notify Bill Cook.
By-line should read "Bill Cook, MSU Extension" Please use the article trailer whenever possible.

Michigan State University is an affirmative action equal opportunity institution. The U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital status or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)

This website is maintained by Bill Cook, Michigan State University Extension Forest in the Upper Peninsula. Comments, questions, and suggestions are gratefully accepted.
Last update of this page was 5 November, 2018