To understand the overall impact of the Christmas tree tradition on the environment , we must consider its entire life cycle.
From its production to its transport and its fate at the end of its life, the fir tree obviously disrupts our ecosystem, whether it is natural or artificial.
The main study conducted on Christmas trees focused on their life cycle. This is a method of analyzing sustainable development that made it possible to take into account all of the environmental impacts of a product, from its design to its end of life.
And it is general, that is, it takes into account human health, resource depletion, CO2 emissions, etc.
This analysis was conducted by Ellipsos, a sustainable development consultancy. It involved an artificial tree kept for 6 years (the average in North America) and a natural tree transported 150 km.
The conclusion is clear: the natural tree is more ecological than the artificial tree.
Although the natural tree suffers the deplorable image of a tree torn from the forest, the artificial tree remains the most harmful for the environment and your health.
The latter is first of all a charming cocktail of plastic, aluminum, toxic paints, but above all volatile compounds, or even microparticles of lead contained in the false thorns.
In short, nothing very pleasant to breathe for at least 1 month!
The biggest difference between the two trees is in CO2 emissions.
While a natural tree helps capture CO2, like all plants, the artificial tree only increases CO2 emissions.
Thus, on average, the natural tree generates 3 kg of CO2, compared to 8 kg on average per year for an artificial tree, which corresponds to a middle-class car journey of 125 km to 322 km.
In Belgium, the figures must nevertheless be qualified, since the majority of artificial trees are manufactured in Asia, while our natural trees come from local crops.
The only way to restore the poor performance of the artificial tree is to keep it for at least 20 years, but this will not remove the indoor pollution it will cause in your home.
