Environmental Impacts of Real Christmas and Artificial Christmas trees

May we ask for your attention in these last days of 2018 and on the eve of a beautiful event.

The American Christmas Tree Association (ACTA) commissioned this comparative LCA study in order to compare the life cycle impacts of artificial Christmas trees and real Christmas trees.

We feel there is potentially reason to be concerned but you can make a difference. Here are the

Results

The results of this study show that the choices made by the customer are a significant contributor to the impacts of both Christmas trees. For the real Christmas tree customer, the manner in which the tree is disposed of at the end of its life is a major contributor to the impacts of the real Christmas tree. For the artificial Christmas tree customer, the length of use is the primary contributor to the artificial Christmas tree impacts.

For the real Christmas tree, cultivation (planting, fertilizing, watering, etc.) is the largest contributor of environmental impacts, with one exception. The end-of-life phase of the real Christmas tree results in the largest contribution of greenhouse gas emissions in the real Christmas tree’s life cycle. This difference is, in part, due to modeling decisions concerning the handling of carbon sequestration in the cultivation phase and carbon release in the end-of-life stage.

For the artificial tree, the raw materials used in manufacturing, specifically polyvinylchloride followed by steel sheets, comprises the largest source of impacts in the artificial tree. Among the various life cycle phases, raw materials and transportation are seen to have largest impacts. Raw materials are primarily responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, eutrophication of water sources and use of non-renewable energy. Transportation mainly causes acidification of water, air and soil and smog in the atmosphere.

Given the quantification of environmental impacts across both of the trees’ life cycles, a comparative assertion shows the breakeven point between the two trees is 4.7 years. That is to say an artificial tree purchased and used for at least 4.7 years demonstrates a lower contribution to environmental impact than 4.7 real Christmas trees purchased over 4.7 years. This assertion considers all end of life scenarios for the real Christmas tree, and assumes that a customer of an artificial tree would purchase the tree and keep it for 5 or more years. The breakeven point can change based on the environmental metrics and end-of-life scenarios, but considering the most conservative calculations, purchasing an artificial tree and keeping it for 4.7 years is less environmentally impactful than purchasing the equivalent amount of real Christmas trees.

In 2010, a life cycle assessment by PE Americas was conducted to compare the impacts associated with a real Christmas and an artificial Christmas tree. The PE Americas LCA studied the differences in impacts for both trees over a similar period of time. The results of the PE America’s Study demonstrated similar results to the study completed by WAP Sustainability Consulting, LLC.. However, the results of these two studies must not be compared directly. This incomparability stems from several key elements, mostly owing to differences in methodology, and include:

... 

Despite the two studies’ limited comparability, the results of the two studies do support some important and consistent generalizations. These are basic trends that can be understood by looking at both of the reports individually and include:

Comparative LCA of the Environmental Impacts of Real Christmas and Artificial Christmas Trees. Public Release Version 2018

1) Both studies indicate that the impacts of sourcing of raw materials is the number one contributor to the environmental impacts across all categories for the artificial tree.

2) Both studies indicate that End-of-life treatment options for real Christmas trees significantly impact the overall footprint of these trees.

3) Both studies indicate a roughly 5-year average breakeven point favoring the artificial Tree as a comparative assertion, given the customer keeps the artificial Tree for at least 5 years.

Conclusion

This LCA was conducted in order to compare the life cycle impacts of artificial Christmas trees and real Christmas trees. The results demonstrate that on a one-to-one comparison, one real Christmas tree generates fewer environmental impacts than one artificial Tree. This statement considers all end of life variables for both trees across all life cycle impact categories.

The study also assumed that reasonable customers do not purchase an artificial tree and use it for only one year. The study demonstrated that if a customer purchases an artificial tree and used it for at least 4.7 years, vs. purchasing the equivalent (4.7) real Christmas trees, the environmental burden shifts and the artificial tree would generate fewer environmental impacts.

Public Statements about the study will aim to educate customers that the purchase of an artificial Christmas tree is environmental beneficial to real Christmas trees, provided the customer keeps the tree for at least five years.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

oh, full study here. In particular thanks to Tim Taylor.