Moderator:Forum Administrators
Dormouse559 wrote:They're also viewed as better for the environment, since you can reuse them for years.
I'm sure there are plenty of both opinions. Both have pros and cons to them.linguoboy wrote:Really? I thought plenty of people considered real trees better because they're "natural". We compost ours.
Dormouse559 wrote:I'm sure there are plenty of both opinions. Both have pros and cons to them.linguoboy wrote:Really? I thought plenty of people considered real trees better because they're "natural". We compost ours.
Oy! I really didn't intend this. I wasn't originally talking about what view is true, just what views people have. You'll note that the article features a consumer who thinks her choice is environmentally friendly.linguoboy wrote:Dormouse559 wrote:I'm sure there are plenty of both opinions. Both have pros and cons to them.linguoboy wrote:Really? I thought plenty of people considered real trees better because they're "natural". We compost ours.
But it looks like there are more cons to plastic trees. This New York Times article cites a study that says you'd have to use a plastic tree for an average of 20 years to make it as green as real wood. Recent articles in Slate and the Guardian came to similar conclusions.
Dormouse559 wrote:Oy! I really didn't intend this. I wasn't originally talking about what view is true, just what views people have. You'll note that the article features a consumer who thinks her choice is environmentally friendly.
Hoogstwaarschijnlijk wrote:I think they're becoming more popular here, I also got one myself. They're cheaper, you can re-use them and they're considered to be better for the environment than killing a tree each year.
linguoboy wrote:The thing is, those trees are raised to be killed. It's like with paper: People like to talk about how they're "saving trees" when over 90% of the trees used to produce pulp were planted explicitly for that purpose. If you use less paper (or buy fewer real Christmas trees), they'll just plant fewer, which is hard to spin as a net win for environmentalism.
Marah wrote:linguoboy wrote:The thing is, those trees are raised to be killed. It's like with paper: People like to talk about how they're "saving trees" when over 90% of the trees used to produce pulp were planted explicitly for that purpose. If you use less paper (or buy fewer real Christmas trees), they'll just plant fewer, which is hard to spin as a net win for environmentalism.
Unless you decide to chop it yourself!
Why do you need Christmas trees? That sounds like it must be a recent trend, since it has its origins in Northern Europe.meidei wrote:Over here, having a real Christmas tree is an indication you are a pretentious fuck (technical term).
But the reason for that is probably that we have very few forests and they are constantly on fire.
mōdgethanc wrote:Why do you need Christmas trees? That sounds like it must be a recent trend, since it has its origins in Northern Europe.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests