The companies that produce agricultural chemicals are no angels. BASF, Bayer/Monsanto, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company and Syngenta together control about 3/4 of the industry worldwide. You could hang an ornament for each one on your tree to show your appreciation for their part in producing your holiday centerpiece.
Live Christmas trees have been losing market share to fake trees for a couple decades now. While the causes of this are not clear, apparently needles on the carpet is one of the consumer complaints. The live Christmas tree industry is not happy about this trend and has been marketing itself, in part, as the "greener" alternative.
Environmentally, there is no defense for fake trees. They are made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic, often contain lead, and are manufactured in China. If they catch fire, they release hydrogen chloride gas and dioxin. Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Asheville, who found in a 2002 study that three out of four fake trees tested contained lead, recommend that children, pets and presents be kept away from fake trees and that vacuuming underneath them should be avoided in order to reduce risk of exposure through skin contact or inhalation. True, this university is in the state that is ranked second in the US for Christmas tree production, and perhaps they have a vested interest in dissing fake trees, but heavy metal poisoning isn't something to fool around with.
But I still wouldn't call live Christmas trees the lesser of two evils, partly because I don't think the calculus is that simple, but mostly because I don't want to encourage that particular rationalization in decision-making; choosing between evils doesn't get us anything good. Less degradation of the environment and human health (if that is the case) is still degradation. How about going for none?
Here are three of the claims made by Christmas tree growers about how their industry is environmental or resource-responsible.
- Christmas tree farms are carbon sinks and, according to the industry, each acre produces enough oxygen for 18 people. I have no way of knowing if the latter claim is accurate, but what I do know is that these trees would perform better in both functions if they were not cut down and were allowed to become forests. Considering how densely such farms are planted (usually about 2000 trees per acres), some thinning would need to happen along the way, so that would be a few more Christmas trees at first, as a kind of consolation prize.
- Christmas tree farms provide "green space" and habitat for wildlife. The first part lifts a catchphrase from the anti-urban sprawl movement, so it sounds right to city liberals, but not all "green space" is equally "green" and certainly not space that has chemicals dumped on it so regularly. As for wildlife, as we saw above, all sorts of animals are affected by the pesticides used on these farms, including the embattled honey bee. Keep in mind, too, that the "weeds" that herbicides kill between the trees include native flora. The utterly bare ground beneath the trees on most Christmas tree farms is not "habitat" for much of anything.
- Christmas trees are often grown on "marginal" land that is too poor for other agricultural crops. True. But this is only a justification if one considers land "wasted" when it's not being used to produce a cash crop (as opposed to being left for wildlife), and that rapacious attitude is clearly part of the problem in the first place. Farms that grow ornamental plants use the same resources as food-producing farmsirrigation water, fuel, etc.that are dwindling or destructively-sourced and it's time we consider whether that's worth it.
What about organic Christmas trees? Nope. First of all, organic agriculture does not, despite popular perception, mean "no chemicals." Synthetic chemicals are not allowed, but some naturally derived ones are. An example is pyrethrum, whichas mentioned aboveis extremely toxic to aquatic animals and mildly to moderately toxic to birds. Its very low toxicity to humans is a reason it is allowed in organic farming, but it's still a killer of beneficial insects along with the pests. When it comes to food, which is a necessity, organic is the better choice for sure, but a Christmas tree is a non-edible ornamental and the damage to other living things cannot be justified on the same grounds.
(If you do research looking for an organic Christmas tree, you will probably run across a couple of other certifications that claim to be greener than conventional methods. One is SERF [Socially & Environmentally Responsible Farms], but their standards are more lenient than organic specifications. They utilize a method called Integrated Pest Management [IPM] that reduces but does not eliminate the use of pesticides. Still no good.)
What about buying a potted tree? One that you can plant after you're done with it? Sounds great, but remember that it came from a tree farm or nursery to start with, so the other downsides mentioned above still apply. You're not in the clear yet, though I'm certainly not going to tell you to not plant a tree!
If I were held at gunpoint and forced to provide a Christmas tree, I would probably go thin something from one of the overcrowded monocrop timber plantations that are plentiful here in the Pacific Northwest. This can even be done legally on public land after paying a small fee. Such trees might have been sprayed when they were young but are otherwise de facto organic. Obviously, though, this isn't something everyone can or should do.
Then there is the non-tree tree. I've visited hippie households where lights were strung on something elsea piece of driftwood, a large branch, that rusty metal "sculpture" an artsy roommate left behind, etc.and the results were charming and fun. This year, a friend sent me a photo of what's now my favorite alternative so far: a tall cat tower hung with all the expected decorations, including a big star on top. As any cat-owned person knows, your feline friend is going to climb whatever you install, so why not cater to them completely?
Barring that type of creativity, though, what I really recommend is no tree at all. Yes, I can already hear the response: "What? No tree? But it's Christmas!" Yes, I know, and that's why this is very best option to consider, even if you still end up getting one. Why? Because collectively and individually our actions are almost entirely unexamined, and we can't go on that way. We've got to look more closely at our choices and at the attitudes, beliefs and habits-of-mind that inform them.
Here in the techno-industrial world, we treat our luxuries like necessities and our privileges like rights. The machine that empowers our indulgences and provides our presents does so at great cost to life all over the planet: human, animal, plant and so on. The crisis we are facing is primarily one of consciousnessof disconnection from nature, of deadened awareness, of lack of empathyso we must question all of our desires. Starting with the spurious extras like holiday decorations should be a no-brainer. That's all that Christmas trees are, after all: decorations. This subject doesn't even rise to the level of rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship. And the ship is definitely sinking.
The Christmas tree is not sacred. Its status as a "tradition" is much more a product of the advertising industry than of historical fact. Celebrations of the Christian holiday or of the Winter Solstice can be held festively and joyously without consumerism. The bottom-line: We must stop hurting and killing things just to fulfill our sentimental desires.
* * * * *
SOURCES:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
