Where are all the stories…

December 7th, 2009

…about how Christmas causes more global warming because of the cutting down of CO2 eating trees and using carbon fuels to move them around the country?

I guess even Al Gore doesn’t want to be called the Grinch, cialis canada no rx huh?

Entry Filed under: Observations

8 Comments Add your own

  • 1. grumps  |  December 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    Even Paddy Mac couldn’t make that story up.

  • 2. jesusisjustalrightwithme  |  December 8th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    That wouldn’t make sense because Christmas trees would not exist but for Christmas. They are grown on tree farms that wouldn’t otherwise exist.

  • 3. John Foust  |  December 8th, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    If I had to bet on it, I’d say fewer real Christmas trees are harvested these days than three decades ago.

  • 4. Dan  |  December 9th, 2009 at 3:08 am

    John, I’d bet you are wrong, even with that fake plastic crap. From what I am seeing, people are buying more real trees than the fake ones.

  • 5. jesusisjustalrightwithme  |  December 9th, 2009 at 10:11 am

    I think that John is wrong and also doesn’t understand how trees work. (But maybe I’m misreading him). It’s really simple: More real trees = MORE real trees. Not less real trees. If demand for trees is up, more are planted, and thus, more C)2 is “eaten.”

    It’s the same reason recycled paper is bad for the environment. It decreases the demand for trees, and therefore decreases the number of trees, which are totally renewable and grown on farms.

  • 6. John Foust  |  December 9th, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    JIJ, I do understand how trees grow and how demand might shape whether more trees are planted. It’s no doubt far more complex. Recycled paper isn’t “bad for the environment.” Recycled paper products can’t replace all virgin paper products, so they may not be strongly linked. Not all forests are paper forests. Future Christmas trees are probably planted in fallow crop fields for convenience of mowing, not in clear-cut forest land.

    From Wikipedia, which I did not check before I bet: “The market for natural Christmas trees in the United States began to tumble when an oversupply during the late 1980s through the mid-1990s sent prices downward.[15] In 1992, harvests of around 850,000 trees in New England were considered too many and Christmas trees sold for around $5 as opposed to the usual $18–30 each.[16] Natural Christmas tree use continued to decline over the next decade, in part, due to the continued rise in popularity of artificial trees.[17][18] In U.S. states where a marginal number of trees were grown, many growers were driven out of business.[19]

    Over 35 million U.S. households displayed natural Christmas trees in 1990, slightly outpaced by the 36.3 million homes that opted for artificial trees that same year.[17] By 2000, the split was more dramatic with 50.6 million homes using artificial trees while 32 million chose natural Christmas trees.[17] Sales of natural trees continued to slide after 2000, and by 2003 sales of natural trees reached 23.4 million.[17] During the same period, artificial tree sales rose from 7.3. to 9.6 million annually.[17] Historically, U.S. consumers, much like those in Europe, preferred open, light density trees. Modern U.S. Christmas tree consumers want higher density trees, and begin purchasing trees shortly after Thanksgiving. This requires trees to last longer and be harvested earlier.[5]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree_production

  • 7. jesusisjustalrightwithme  |  December 10th, 2009 at 10:43 am

    Wow, I’m shocked that many people get fake trees. Gross.

    But you are wrong about recycled paper. Well, at the very least, there’s no evidence that suggests that recycled paper is good for the environment, and to go with the data indicating as much, logically it seems like doing anything to decrease the number of trees planted wouldn’t be good for the environment, expecially when that something increases transportation required, requires a chemical de-inking process, etc. etc.

  • 8. John Foust  |  December 12th, 2009 at 10:51 am

    I thought the point of believing in the market was that it was so complex you weren’t supposed to be able to understand and outwit the market, especially if you’re trying to argue that something is “good for trees”. Not all recycled paper products need to be lily-white. Not all trees are used for paper. More trees could be growing than ever (and again, if I had to bet a doughnut or the next round, I’d say there’s more trees than ever) for reasons other than paper production needs. Finally, the environment is more than trees.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta