Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Economics of Christmas Trees

thehustle.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 165 posts

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#31

Post by enriquto »

cm2012 wrote: post #27
enriquto wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it really make a difference to burn wood than to throw it away? I guess that after decomposition of the wood, all its carbon goes back to the atmosphere. It is just slower than if you burned it. The biosphere is a closed cycle, we cannot probably use it to store carbon away by means of its own mechanism. Main problem is that we are adding new fossil carbon into it every day.

I've heard the opposite for global warming - burial is excellent for carbon capture (delays carbon release for a long time), burning is awful (releases carbon into the atmosphere instantly).

Interesting, it makes sense. Do you know what are the involved timescales here? How long before the buried wood is decomposed and has released most of its carbon back? Is it 50 years or 5000? Maybe it depends a lot on the type of soil?

EDIT: as the sibling comment observes, burning the tree cannot be "awful", as all the carbon from that tree came from the atmosphere. Growing and burning a tree is the epitome of carbon-neutral thing to do. Now, burying a tree may have a positive (non-neutral) effect.

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#32

Post by bombcar »

cptskippy wrote: post #19
cm2012 wrote: post #4

This is a great article.

I wish they explored the ACTA claims that artificial Christmas trees are more environmentally friendly than real trees. Artificial trees are made from PVC and the by products of PVC manufacturing are highly toxic and historically highly polluting. In order for that claim to be true under China's lax regulatory environment, either they have some revolutionary new method of producing PVC or farming Christmas trees is h…

I suspect the disconnect is that the average fake tree is NOT used for ten years - probably closer to one.

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#33

Post by minitoar »

bombcar wrote: post #28
silexia wrote: post #16

I run a Christmas tree farm at a small scale. I wonder if real Christmas trees are actually worse for the environment than fake trees as many real Christmas trees are burned rather than sent to a landfill?

Based on the listed sales numbers it appears a majority of fake trees are a one-year deal (maybe two). You can’t sell 25m fake trees a year if people are keeping them for next year.

Our fake tree is 30 years old, and made in Canada. We’re probably an outlier.

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#34

Post by sokoloff »

cm2012 wrote: post #27
enriquto wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it really make a difference to burn wood than to throw it away? I guess that after decomposition of the wood, all its carbon goes back to the atmosphere. It is just slower than if you burned it. The biosphere is a closed cycle, we cannot probably use it to store carbon away by means of its own mechanism. Main problem is that we are adding new fossil carbon into it every day.

I've heard the opposite for global warming - burial is excellent for carbon capture (delays carbon release for a long time), burning is awful (releases carbon into the atmosphere instantly).

If you're buying a tree that would have otherwise not been grown (such as if buying Christmas trees wasn't a thing and that land was used for something else instead), I'm not sure it's so bad though. That carbon came from the atmosphere over the last 10-15 years, so putting it back is "even" within a child's lifetime.

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#36

Post by sokoloff »

bombcar wrote: post #28
silexia wrote: post #16

I run a Christmas tree farm at a small scale. I wonder if real Christmas trees are actually worse for the environment than fake trees as many real Christmas trees are burned rather than sent to a landfill?

Based on the listed sales numbers it appears a majority of fake trees are a one-year deal (maybe two). You can’t sell 25m fake trees a year if people are keeping them for next year.

We had fake trees growing up. We had two over the entire time I lived with my parents. We have a fake tree in my house now. We bought it in 2007 before having kids and I expect that will be the only tree my kids will see. I can't imagine discarding a fake tree after less than 10 years, let alone 1 or 2.

Re: The Economics of Christmas Trees

#38

Post by mensetmanusman »

abootstrapper wrote: post #17
Negitivefrags wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Doesn’t release nearly as much as burning it.
Post reply on HN