The holiday season brings with it a question as traditional as twinkling lights: real or artificial Christmas tree?

Both options come with environmental pros and cons, but as Katie Okamoto, sustainability editor at Wirecutter, points out, the answer often depends on how trees are sourced, used and eventually discarded. Okamoto emphasizes the importance of nuance when assessing environmental choices.

In a recent article on www.nytimes.com/wirecutter,  she explained that while real trees tend to have a smaller environmental footprint in terms of carbon emissions and resource use, their impact depends on several factors, including farming practices and disposal methods.

SUPPORTING REAL TREES

"For the lowest impact, get your real tree locally, and take advantage of recycling programs, as our colleagues at The New York Times advise," Okamoto wrote in the article. "Recycling will turn your old tree into mulch rather than sending it to a landfill or an incinerator. If the real tree is alive, with roots intact, and it can be replanted, even better."

Organizations like The Nature Conservancy and the American Christmas Tree Association (ACTA) echo the benefits of real trees. According to ACTA, 30 million Christmas trees are harvested annually from U.S. farms, but these trees are part of a broader population of 350 to 500 million trees. This sustainable approach helps preserve forests, which provide critical wildlife habitats and absorb carbon dioxide.

Real trees can also be recycled into mulch or used in conservation projects. Here in Baldwin County, recycled trees are often repurposed for dune restoration along the Gulf Coast, giving the trees a second life in protecting fragile ecosystems.

THE CASE FOR ARTIFICIAL TREES

Okamoto also acknowledged the trade-offs in the article. Real trees grown with herbicides or pesticides may have a larger environmental impact. Additionally, if an artificial tree is kept long enough, its environmental footprint may eventually be smaller than that of a new real tree bought each year.

However, Okamoto notes that the time required for this to happen varies depending on the source. For example, ACTA estimates it at about five years, while other organizations, like Two Sides North America, suggest it could take up to 20 years.

Artificial trees, typically made from PVC and metal, can be a more cost-effective option in the long run. However, unlike real trees, artificial trees are rarely recyclable and often end up in landfills.

For some households, an artificial tree may be the better choice due to practical considerations like allergies or convenience. Artificial trees are hypoallergenic, as they don't produce the pollen or mold that can sometimes be found on real trees. This makes them a safer option for individuals with tree or pollen allergies. Additionally, for those with tree sap sensitivities, artificial trees eliminate the risk of irritation.

If you decide to purchase an artificial tree, Okamoto's advice is simple: "Keep it for as long as possible."

THE TAKEAWAY

While the choice between real and artificial Christmas trees often comes down to personal preference, Okamoto's insights highlight a crucial takeaway: the sustainability of your tree depends on how you use and dispose of it. Real trees support local ecosystems and can be recycled, but artificial trees, when used for many years, can also minimize environmental impact.

But caring for the environment during the holidays shouldn't begin or end with real or artificial Christmas trees. If you're concerned about the carbon footprint of your Christmas tree, consider the impact of other holiday items, such as lawn inflatables, Christmas ornaments and wrapping paper.