Why you shouldn't worry about the footprint of your Christmas tree

Another unpopular view: don't worry about the sustainability of your Christmas tree - it's another distraction from the climate transformation we need to do. 🎄 

Let's break down the numbers: 

👉 When recycled or burnt, a natural Christmas tree consumes 3.1kg CO2. 

👉 That's the same as driving 15-20km in an average car.

👉 Or 11% of the 28k CO2 from consuming 4 steaks for the Christmas dinner. 

Now honestly, the above make any further discussion just a waste of time, but let's have some fun with the nuances here: 

🤔 An artificial tree needs to be used for 20 years to save just enough CO2 to justify not just getting a natural tree every year. 

🤔 The reason a tree releases CO2 when burnt is that it has absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere when growing. So the actual negative impact on the environment must be even lower - I'd love to see an analysis on the tradeoff here if anyone has it! 

🤔 Christmas trees are often small local businesses boosting local economies. 

Why does this discussion matter? It's good to be a conscious consumer, right? 

🛑 Absolutely, but don't fool yourself by getting your "sustainability fix" from actions that doesn't matter. 

🛑 Press and regulators will focus on issues that are top of mind to consumers. We are over-covering the wrong things.

This is called "availability bias" - Christmas trees are very visible, relatable and in many cases avoidable, so it's one of the examples we all jump to. 

However, according to one report, just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. 

Think about that the next time you discuss climate change with your family and friends. 

Discussing your personal footprint is a distraction. 

We need to act on large-scale industries and their supply chains. 

It's highly unsexy. Super difficult to understand. But it's where the solution is found. 

Not in you being a hyperaware consumer that advocates for removing Christmas trees.