Hacker News Reader

Comment by aynsof | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com