Artificial Christmas trees need to be re-used a minimum of five times before their carbon emissions are lower than that of a real tree, research from the University of Sheffield has revealed.
The debate over the environmental benefits of ‘real’ vs ‘artificial’ Christmas trees resurfaces every year, and the study, which was carried out by the Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, found that real trees are a more sustainable option, as long as they are recycled responsibly or composted.
Recycling or composting
“As real trees grow, they take in carbon dioxide, storing it in their cells,” commented Dr Stuart Walker, senior research fellow in sustainability assessment. “Burning a tree therefore releases carbon dioxide rapidly and contributes to additional pollutants, such as particulate matter and soot.
“However, recycling or composting allows for a slower release of carbon and partial absorption into the soil, making these methods more sustainable. A potted Christmas tree has an ever-increasing climate benefit as it will continue to absorb carbon – as long as it is planted when it becomes too big for the pot.”
In contrast, artificial Christmas trees require significant energy and resources during production, resulting in a high environmental footprint. To reduce their impact, they must be reused for at least five years. This makes artificial trees a sustainable option only if they are kept for an extended period.
Walker called on households to consider the end-of-life options for real Christmas trees, highlighting charity collection schemes that ensure that trees are properly recycled, composted, or replanted.
“My research concludes that real trees are often the most sustainable choice, but only if disposed of thoughtfully,” he said. “This underscores the importance of considering reuse, recycling, and sustainable alternatives in all aspects of life. Often the most sustainable choice is something you already own, so reusing an artificial tree as many times as possible reduces its environmental impact.”
‘Not categorically worse’
In Germany, the federal environment agency states on its website that ‘from an environmental perspective, plastic Christmas trees are not categorically worse than natural ones’, depending on how often they are used.
As a spokesperson for the environment agency told Der Spiegel, a plantation-grown fir tree generates between three and seven kilograms of CO2, while a plastic tree produces roughly 25 to 45 kilograms during manufacturing and transport. However, the environmental impact of said tree can vary, depending on where it is made, the materials used, how long it is reused, and how it is disposed of. For example, plastic trees manufactured in Europe have a lower footprint than those produced in Asia.
Environmental footprint
Elsewhere, Professor Rachael Rothman, plastics expert and co-director of the University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures, added that the ‘Christmas tree debate’ should act as a catalyst for households to consider the impact of everyday purchases on their environmental footprint, particularly with regard to single-use plastics.
“By reducing reliance on single-use plastics, promoting material reuse, and strengthening recycling systems, we can address the growing challenges of waste and environmental degradation,” she said. “These systemic changes are essential, not only for tackling plastic pollution but also for rethinking how we interact with materials in every part of life.” Read more here.
