Content uploaded by Jim Bowyer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jim Bowyer on Dec 14, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Dovetail Partners Consuming Responsibly Report No. 3
Environmental Assessment of
Natural vs. Artificial Christmas
Trees
Jim L. Bowyer
Harry Groot Gloria Erickson Chuck Henderson Ed Pepke, Ph. D.
Jeff Howe, Ph.D. Kathryn Fernholz
Dovetail Partners, Inc.
November 19, 2018
2
Environmental Assessment of Natural vs. Artificial Christmas
Trees
Executive Summary
The question of natural vs. artificial Christmas trees is often a topic of discussion in the
popular media as year-end approaches, suggesting more than casual interest in the
tradeoffs involved. Among those tradeoffs is environmental impact.
In 2016, 27.4 million natural Christmas trees were sold in the United States, about 9
million more than the number of artificial trees sold (18.6 million). Although more natural
trees were sold, the difference in the number of real vs. artificial trees was the smallest
ever recorded.
1
Changing consumer preferences raise a question as to what impact a shift to greater
numbers of artificial trees might have on the environment. Which has less impact, natural
or artificial trees? The answer is that . . . well, it depends. Which of these choices is
environmentally better hinges on such factors as travel distances from local tree retailer
to home, the number of years an artificial tree is kept in service, what happens to natural
trees at the end of the Christmas season, and what environmental impact measure is
judged to be the most important.
In general, production and use of natural trees results in lower environmental impacts
than production and use of artificial trees. However, long transportation distances from
tree grower to retailer and retailer to home have a significant impact on a range of impact
indicators, and can shift the advantage to artificial trees. Minimizing the environmental
impacts of artificial trees requires that they be kept in service for a number of years.
Examining the Holiday Tree
Virtually all natural Christmas trees sold in North America are grown within the U.S. or
Canada. The vast majority of artificial trees sold are manufactured in China.
Transportation distances and modes of transport from point of production to retailer are
taken into account when determining life cycle impacts of trees.
The two studies cited in this report – the only two life cycle assessments of natural vs.
artificial trees published – both indicate that natural trees result in lower environmental
impacts than artificial trees, and most dramatically with respect to global warming
potential (GWP). Results also indicate that if artificial trees are selected, they should be
kept in service for an extended period. Assuming that the travel distances from retailer
1
In 2016 27.4 million natural and 18.6 million artificial Christmas trees were sold in the U.S. The difference
in numbers – 8.8 million – is far smaller than in 2014, the year previously noted for the least difference
in natural vs. artificial tree sales, when 12.4 million more natural trees were sold than artificial ones.
(Source: Statista 2017)
3
to home are the same for both artificial and natural trees, that natural trees are chipped
and combusted for energy recovery or taken to landfill at the end of the holiday season,
and that GWP is the most important environmental indicator, then an artificial tree must
be kept in service for 15-20 years in order to achieve equal environmental impact to an
equivalent number of natural trees. When a full range of environmental impact indicators,
beyond global warming potential alone, is considered, results indicate that an artificial
tree must be kept in service at least 4-6 years in order to achieve comparable
environmental impact to a yearly series of natural trees.
Two Life Cycle Assessments
This report is informed by two life cycle assessments which were published in 2009 and
2010. Both were conducted in accordance with international protocols for the conduct of
LCAs and reviewed by independent third-party experts. In these assessments the full life
cycles of unlighted natural and artificial trees 6.5 and 7 feet (about 2 meters) in height
were examined. As in all life cycle assessments, inputs of all raw materials (including
water) and energy were determined, as were all outputs including emissions to air, water,
and ground, and final products and co-products.
Natural trees were evaluated from seed to seedling within a nursery, planting and tree
cultivation in the field, final harvest, wrapping for transport, transportation to the
distribution site and then to locations where trees are used, and disposal upon end of
use. For artificial trees, assessment began with production of PVC resin and steel
components, forming of PVC needles and tree branches, assembly and packaging of
trees, shipment (from China, and from North American port of entry) to retailer,
transportation from retailer to location of use, and finally disposal.
As it was assumed that both natural and artificial trees would be identically decorated,
the impacts linked to decorations were not evaluated.
The impacts of harvesting wild trees under permit from state or national forests were not
evaluated as part of this report, as such activity accounts for a very small fraction of
holiday trees harvested. However, since transportation distance is a major determinant
of environmental impact for all options, wild harvesting of trees is associated with low
impact only when driving distances from home to forest are short.
The global warming impact of 18.6 million American consumers
choosing artificial trees rather than natural ones in 2017 was equal to
about 1.7 billion miles (2,736 million km) of driving an 18 mile/gallon
(13.1 liters/100 km) vehicle, or 1.2 billion miles (1,931 million km) of
driving a 25 mile/gallon (9.4 liters/100 km) vehicle.
4
A Canadian Assessment
In the 2009 assessment, conducted by the Canadian consulting firm Ellipsos, a life of 6
years was assumed for artificial trees, based on a survey which found this to be the
average life of such trees in North America. Natural trees evaluated were assumed to be
obtained from a plantation located 93 miles (150 km) from Montreal, Canada for use in
that metropolitan area. Artificial trees were assumed to be produced in China and
transported via container ship to Vancouver, and then by rail from Vancouver to Montreal.
Trees evaluated were 7-feet in height. Comparison of impacts involved examination of
seedling production/tree growth/harvest/transport/use/disposal cycles for six natural
trees vs. one manufacturing and packaging/ transport/use/disposal cycle for an artificial
tree. A distance from tree retailer to home of 3 miles (5 km) was assumed. Also assumed
was burning of natural trees for energy recovery upon disposal, reflecting common
practice in Montreal. Fifteen different impact categories
2
were assessed and reported.
This study found greater environmental impact of artificial trees in seven of the fifteen
impact categories, greater impact of natural trees in seven others, and an essentially
equivalent result in one more. A key finding was that climate impacts are over 1 ½ times
greater for artificial trees when the useful life of such trees is 6 years. Because climate
change potential was judged to be of primary importance for the general population of
Québec province, it was concluded that natural were the preferred option. In fact, a life
of 20 years would be needed for an artificial tree to yield climate impacts as low as those
of a natural tree.
The full range of impact indicators evaluated by Ellipsos was weighted by the authors of
this report in accordance with recommendations of the BEES
3
expert panel of the National
Institute of Science and Technology (NIST). The weighted outcome also showed natural
trees to be environmentally preferable, although by a smaller margin than when
considering GWP alone.
The validity of the report’s conclusions are strongly influenced by transportation
distances. If, for instance, the transport distance from retailer to home is 10 miles (16
km) rather than 3 miles (5 km), then it is environmentally better to purchase an artificial
tree, assuming a 6-year or longer useful life of the tree. This result is due to the fact that
whereas purchase of an artificial tree would require only one round trip from retailer to
home in a 6-year period, purchase of natural trees would require 6 round trips in the
same time period.
2
Impact categories assessed were non-renewable energy demand, terrestrial and aquatic acidification potential,
eutrophication potential, global warming potential, ozone depletion potential, aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity,
mineral extraction, land occupation, ionizing radiation, and four human health impact indicators.
3
Building for Economic and Environmental Sustainability (BEES) environmental calculator.
5
A U.S. Assessment
In 2010 an assessment was done by the Boston-based consulting firm PE Americas under
contract with the American Christmas Tree Association. In this assessment, the useful life
of artificial trees was variously assumed to be 1, 5, or 10 years. Trees were assumed to
be 6.5 feet in height. Natural trees evaluated were Fraser fir, the most preferred species
in the U.S. Artificial trees were assumed to be produced in Guangdong, China, with the
model of tree evaluated the most common sold in the U.S. market at the time of the
study. As in the 2009 study, all stages in production of natural and artificial trees were
evaluated.
Shipment of artificial trees from China was assumed to be via container ship. Transport
within North America was assumed to be on trucks. Based on 2007 data, the average
haul distance for miscellaneous durable goods from manufacturer or port of entry to
merchant wholesalers was 881 miles (1,418 km); this was the assumed truck transport
distance from warehouse to retailer used in this study. The round-trip distance from
retailer to end consumer was assumed to be 5 miles (8 km), while transport from end-
user to landfill, compost or recycling site, or incinerator was assumed to be 20 miles (32
km). Five different impact categories
4
were assessed and reported.
This study, which did not assume energy recovery from natural trees after disposal, found
that when natural trees are landfilled at end of life, thereby sequestering the carbon they
contain, and when the one-way distance from retailer to home is 2.5 miles (4 km) or less,
natural trees are
always
preferable to artificial trees based on GWP. When the one-way
distance from retailer to home is 10 miles (16 km), and natural trees are landfilled at end
of life, an artificial tree must be kept in service for at least 9 years to yield the same global
warming potential.
For natural trees that are composted or incinerated (no energy recovery) at end of life,
the point at which GWP is equal is where artificial trees have been in service for 4 years.
Beyond that point, the impact of an artificial tree was found to be lower.
Context of Findings
The Ellipsos study found that CO2-equivalent
5
emissions resulting from production and
use of one artificial tree kept in service for 6 years would be significantly greater than
those resulting from production and annual use of six natural trees. The difference was
roughly equal to CO2-equivalent emissions that would result from driving an 18
4
Impact categories assessed were non-renewable energy demand, acidification potential, eutrophication
potential, global warming potential, and smog potential.
5
The term CO2 equivalent emissions encompasses a weighted average of the atmospheric warming potential of the
full range of heat trapping compounds, including carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride. Weighting is necessary since the heating
potential of all of these compounds is greater than that of carbon dioxide. Methane, for example, is 25 times more
potent than carbon dioxide as a heat trapping compound.
6
mile/gallon (13.1 liters/100 km) vehicle a distance of 90 miles (145 km). In other words,
again assuming a 6-year life for artificial trees, the global warming impact of 18.6 million
American consumers choosing artificial trees rather than natural ones in 2017 resulted in
an increase in CO2-equivalent emissions equal to about 1.7
billion
miles (2,736 million
km) of driving an 18 mile/gallon vehicle, or 1.2
billion
miles (1,931 million km) of driving
a 25 mile/gallon (13.1 liters/100 km) vehicle. The PE Americas study led to comparable
results. Relatively small impacts at an individual household level can add up to quite
substantial impacts for an entire population of a large nation. That said, the carbon
emissions resulting from production and use of Christmas trees of all kinds adds up to
less than 0.1% of an average person’s carbon footprint. This reality doesn’t necessarily
point to insignificance of impact related to the choice of Christmas tree, but rather to the
very large carbon footprint of the U.S.
A factor that has potentially greater impact than production of trees is the type of lights
used. As calculated as part of the PE Americas study, lighting a string of 400 incandescent
tree lights each season results in 1.5-3.5 times the carbon emissions that the full life cycle
of a natural tree does. Use of LED lights results in about one-fifth the carbon emissions
as incandescent, reducing considerably the relative impact of lighting.
Self-Harvesting of Natural Trees
For those living near national forests and state forests within some states, cutting of
holiday trees is allowed with permit. Removal of small conifers in designated areas can
be beneficial to the forest by helping to remove ladder fuels that can allow wildfire to
climb to the tops of larger trees. The overall environmental impact of self-harvesting is
heavily determined by the driving distance from home to harvest site. Any one-way
distance greater than about 6-8 miles is likely to favor other means of obtaining a tree.
For those lucky enough to reside on forest land, self-harvesting has essentially zero
impact.
In a few locations, innovative options for self-harvesting are available. For example, a
unique partnership between the Durango & Silverton narrow gauge railroad, the San Juan
National Forest, the San Juan Mountains Association, and Firewise of Southwest Colorado
offers families the opportunity to travel by train into the national forest to select and
harvest a tree. Harvesting is done under the supervision of professional foresters and
harvested trees are loaded onto the train for transport back to the point of departure. In
Clark County, Washington, the Chelatchie Prairie Railroad offers families train rides out
to a Christmas tree farm where they can harvest a tree of their choosing. And those living
near Strasburg, Pennsylvania can ride the rails to a location where they can select a pre-
cut tree. All of these potentially reduce individual automobile travel and can reduce the
environmental impact of obtaining a tree, provided that the distance from home to the
train depot is relatively short.
7
A New Wrinkle in Christmas-Tree Purchasing
The impacts associated with the availability of real trees via online shopping (e.g.,
Amazon) have not yet been systematically assessed. On the one hand, packaging is
significantly greater than for trees purchased from a Christmas tree lot. On the other
hand, transport impacts might be reduced in that individual trips to obtain trees are
replaced by consolidated delivery via truck.
Strategies for Reducing Environmental Impacts
There are several things that consumers can do to reduce the environmental impact of a
holiday tree. These include:
If natural trees are available close to home, go natural as real trees generally
represent a lower environmental impact option than artificial trees.
Consider purchasing a living potted tree which can be planted outside following
the holiday season.
If purchasing an artificial tree, select a durable tree and plan to keep it for a
number of years.
Always remove all decorations, lights, and stands from trees, whether natural or
artificial, before disposal.
Check to see if your community recovers energy from natural trees upon disposal,
and if not encourage elected officials to adopt this practice; otherwise encourage
beneficial reuse or landfilling.
Check for opportunities in your community for donating natural trees for use in
wildlife or fish habitat improvement projects.
When ready to dispose of an artificial tree, seek opportunities for donating trees
for reuse by others. Goodwill is one organization that accepts used artificial trees
as long as they are in the original box.
Summary
Based on differences in environmental impact, natural Christmas trees are generally
better than artificial trees. With respect to global warming potential, natural trees have a
far lower environmental impact than artificial trees, particularly when natural trees are
landfilled or chipped for energy recovery upon disposal. Differences are greatest when
distances from grower to retailer to home are short.
8
Sources of Information
Couillard, S., Bage, G. and Trudel, J-S. 2009. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
of Artificial vs. Natural Christmas Tree. Ellipsos. (http://ellipsos.ca/lca-christmas-tree-
natural-vs-artificial/)
Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network. 2015. All Aboard the Christmas Tree
Train! (https://fireadaptednetwork.org/all-aboard-the-christmas-tree-train/)
PE Americas. 2010. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of an Artificial Christmas Tree
and a Natural Christmas Tree. (https://8nht63gnxqz2c2hp22a6qjv6-wpengine.netdna-
ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ACTA-Christmas-Tree-LCA-Final-Report-
November-2010.pdf)
Statista. 2017. Christmas Trees Sold in the United States from 2004 to 2016.
(https://www.statista.com/statistics/209249/purchase-figures-for-real-and-fake-
christmas-trees-in-the-us/)