Natural or not, a Christmas tree is everywhere and in every place. Practically since the end of November it has dominated homes and shops, fueling a market (with all the lights and related decorations) worth several million euros. A tradition that is unlikely to weaken but which has an impact in one way or another, together with everything that revolves around the Holy Feasts.
But from an environmental perspective, which of the two has the better carbon footprint? It could be said that the artificial has the advantage of being able to be maintained from one year to the next. But, be careful, it seems that this is often its only point in its favor. Why? Well, first of all it’s made of plastic and very, very far from here…
The comparison is made by the French consumer portal Que Choisir.
Artificial and natural, qhow much CO2 do Christmas trees emit
It was the Quebec consultancy company specializing in sustainable development, Ellipsos, which in 2009 analyzed the life cycle of a natural tree and an artificial tree, calculating the greenhouse gas emissions they generate from their cultivation to the management of their end of life . Ellipsos hypothesized that the natural was grown within a 150 km radius of Montreal, where it was purchased. Result: 3.1 kg of CO equivalent2 (eqCO2) per tree, to be repurchased every year. As regards the artificial one, produced in China and transported to Montreal by ship and then by train, it was calculated 48.3 kg of CO2 eq2 per treewhich however can be stored for several years. Assuming the tree was kept for 6 years, they estimated themselves 8.1 kg of CO2 eq2/year for the artificial.
So how can we compensate for the greater impact?
Without a doubt by preserving the artificial one for as long as possible: in its guide to organizing a greener Christmas, the Agency for Ecological Transition (ADEME) does not ban the plastic tree, only on the condition that it is preserved for a long time to compensate for the impacts related to its manufacturing and transportation. However, if artificial trees are maintained for 8 years on average, it would take at least double that for it to become advantageous compared to a natural tree in terms of carbon footprint.
An advantage therefore for natural fir, which with its 3.1 kg of CO 2 eq. “On average, from sowing to felling, it takes 10 years, of which generally 5-6 years are spent in the open field,” explains Vincent Houis, engineer and technical consultant of the French Association of Natural Christmas Trees. However, to grow, like any tree, fir absorbs CO2 – fundamental ingredient in photosynthesis – and keeps it prisoner even once cut down, unless it is burned“.
A DIY tree?
An artificial tree can be made from other materials that require fewer carbon emissions than plastic. Nothing stops you from creating your own artificial tree from recycled materials.
On social media, there are several videos that give some ideas and advice. You can find them made from wood scraps but also bottles, a ladder, a pile of books… From an environmental point of view, there is nothing better!
HERE are our recommendations: DIY wall Christmas trees: find out how to make them with recycled materials
Don’t hide behind the tree…
The issue is much more complex: if on the one hand it is laudable to try to have the Christmas tree with the lowest carbon footprint possible, on the other let’s remember that it represents only a small part of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by holiday celebrations .
In a report published in December 2022 by Ademe, the tree is classified in the decoration category, which alone represents only 2% of the carbon footprint of these parties.
Where do most of the emissions come from? Well, it’s easy to understand: 15% food, 25% travel and 57% (infamous) gifts. Perhaps it is on these points that we should act first…
