Hacker News Reader

Comment by sircastor | Hacker News Reader

I was just discussing tree farm economics with the guy who runs the farm we bought from this year. Our normal place was closed this year, and he told me a number of his local competitors only opened for one weekend. The trees this year we’re on the short side because of supply issues from the previous years.

View on HN

Also was just musing about this since we cut a tree for Christmas yesterday.

I was feeling a but guilty harvesting a tree every year, wondering if fake was the way to go.

Reading the article made me wonder if neither choice was a good one.

It does look like "U-Cut" trees are cutting out the middleman(person) and putting money straight into the farmer's pocket. At $65 that's a much healthier profit margin than the $8-$10 they get selling to wholesalers.

And I suppose if there were made-in-the-USA fake trees that too could stimulate the local (U.S.) economy ... but that doesn't appear to be the case.

I do wonder how the expert in the article came up with the assertion that fake was now environmentally friendly than real. Surely shipping a pile of plastic from China is worse for the environment than growing a real tree for 10 years.

Even if the plastic lasts for a decade, and the alternative is to buy 10 real trees over that same time period, I'd have thought the natural option would be better for the planet.

I haven't made the math... but those plastic trees are much smaller and lighter than the real ones (and have a very standard size in a box that can be very well optimized), so shipping them from China on a container boat + container train + keeping them 10 years might not be that bad comparing to what is required to transport those natural trees every single year on trucks often across borders (lots of tree farms in Canada shipping to the US) + complicated transport OUT at the end of the season. Obviously you have to add the positive impact of having a tree growing and the CO2 they process. Just wanted to chime that it might not be that obvious what is really more eco-friendly. I'm speaking as someone who would obviously prefer the plastic-free solution.

I am going to buy a replantable pottgrown tree this year. I've read plastic trees needs to be used 14 years in order to be more eco friendly than cutting a new tree every year.

> Surely shipping a pile of plastic from China is worse for the environment than growing a real tree for 10 years.

Trees are light and container shipping is efficient. I found this from a totally unbiased source: https://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/environment/ai...

In practice, it's just a different environmental impact. You have to weigh plastic production against more shipping, and depending on what you care about, which is "better" will change.

Don’t feel guilty about harvesting trees. This is literally a carbon capture business. They are not cutting them down from the wilderness.

> This is literally a carbon capture business.

Even if you're not burning it the day after Christmas, it'll get chipped and composted. Some of the carbon is released in composting, some wood will remain, but with how people use mulch, I wouldn't expect it to capture carbon long enough to be interesting.

At least when I was growing up, we burned them after Christmas. Wouldn't that release the carbon? I guess some of it's still left over as ashes.

Why would you need to burn it?

The tree takes up a bunch of space. The ashes are more compact.

Plus it’s fun. We’re talking 20 ft high flames you can feel from 50 ft away.

In Ireland they are shredded for mulch.

Because you're putting most of them into the atmosphere as carbon gas!

Honest question. How would you have to dispose of the tree to capture the carbon? Burry it? Wouldn’t composting release the carbon?

You would need to either bury it in a way that it won't be decomposed by microbes. Anaerobic digestion produces methane which is ~83x worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

The alternative is to gasify it, and produce biochar (a.k.a terra preta), a form of carbon that is mixed with the soil to improve it's nutrient and water retention, friability and microbial activity. Biochar is theorized to be stable for 10k years in the soil.

Same way you dispose regular garbage, which has same challenges.

I went to the tour of recycling plant, and as part of the tour they told us what happens with Seattle garbage: they excavate a pit, line it up with plastic, put garbage in, cover it with plastic, put soil on top. Without supply of oxygen it basically stays there almost forever. They cut a carrot with was in such pit for 10 years. It was black on the outside, but still orange inside!

Anyway, put trees in such pits, and you have carbon capture!

Doesn’t release nearly as much as burning it.

Every single thing you buy has the same economics. It's not really a moral thing to worry about. Retailers are not evil for taking a cut, they have a very competitive business as well.

Plus the farms are quite sustainable, there's no risk of overfarming Christmas trees.

Maybe buy a used artificial one, or just ask friends and relatives of they're getting rid of one?

For years I used my grandfather's old artificial tree. It's probably seen 30+ years of service and was still functional when we upgraded.

This is because of the wildfires in the PNW, right? I remember hearing about this years ago.

I believe it’s actually more related to the economic depression/recession ~2008. Fewer buyers in 2008 meant less space to plant new trees, which means fewer trees reaching maturity for this season. Coupled with a bad few years means more farms closing, meaning fewer trees available for a larger customer base.

Though I can’t speak regarding the fires impact on farms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com