Real or Artificial: Which Christmas Tree Is Better For The Environment?

W hen first thinking about Christmas I’m sure most of us await decorating the tree. Our tree is often the show-stopping heart of the living room. However, as we grab the piled-up gifts below, I never thought about how they might affect the environment. Coming from quite a frugal and tradition-absorbed household, my ignorance toward landfills and pollution, caused by Christmas trees in particular, is something that surprised me. Although there are significant negative impacts caused by the mass production and throwing away of plastic trees – the overall impact, home to home I believed to be not that large.

With real fir Christmas trees being upward of £100 for many people in my community, growing up this was simply something unaffordable.

For me, and I’m sure many others, our sparse-aged Christmas tree of 15 years is something we enjoy keeping and propping up every year. It is something that you can’t find with a real tree as it decays and splinters yearly, ours brings nostalgia. Despite being renewable and environmentally more efficient I can’t help but believe that – at least in my community – a plastic Christmas tree is something you never throw away. Surely the maintained, albeit old and raggedy, plastic tree of 15 years equates to being more renewable, at least in a socioeconomic sense. Watching Christmas films at home such as ‘Deck the Halls,’ where they choose their fresh tree from their primped and maintained allotment, real, living trees always seemed unattainable and something the upper class indulged in. With real, fir Christmas trees being upward of £100, for many people in my community growing up this was simply something unaffordable, especially annually. With plastic trees being anywhere from £30-£100, depending on their size, on Amazon, this in comparison is an investment cost, rather than a throw-away luxury.

Plastics trees last over the course of a few years whilst real trees last up to 2 months.

Real fir trees produce 3.5kg of CO2 when thrown into wood chippers, whilst plastic trees produce 40kg upon disposal. At the surface, this seems a sustainability win for real trees, however when looking more in-depth into reusability and the likelihood that everyday people own wood chippers, real trees produce 16kg when left in landfills – which is where they most likely end up. Despite having more than double the emissions of greenhouse gases when disposed of, plastic trees’ reusability, especially when it comes to the more frugal of us, are a lot better. Plastic trees last over the course of a few years whilst real trees last up to 2 months, therefore plastic trees, in my view, win the argument of sustainability in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. However, most fake trees are made of PVC, which is notoriously difficult to recycle as it needs specialist help. Yet, artificial trees are made and not grown and, compared to fir trees, this means that inorganic and harmful pesticides used on farms are another factor you don’t need to consider when choosing an artificial tree.

Real fir trees produce 3.5kg of CO2, when thrown into wood chippers, whilst plastic trees produce 40kg upon disposal.

There are sustainable pros and cons to both artificial and real fir trees which need to be considered. However, I believe neither to be 100% free from any unethical practices. Most importantly, you should consider your lifestyle when buying a Christmas tree; that can be a lifestyle where you can afford to yearly replenish your real fir trees, dispose of them properly and source them from a farm without pesticides. However, with all these ‘ethical’ measures in mind, along with the stresses of the holidays, I don’t think it fair to demonise those who maybe just prefer real trees and have the ability to afford that luxury, the same way we shouldn’t demonise the financially resourceful, who reuse their artificial trees.