In today's paper, two statements were made about Christmas trees and the environment. One made by a professor of which I believe is a very passionate environmentalist and then a cartoon writer who may tend to prefer tradition over the environment. But which one put a better statement that helped to reduce a carbon footprint? The answer is the cartoonist. Let me explain.
I was pleasantly surprised this morning that the front page article about real versus artificial trees featured a family that is close to our family. It was nice reading that continued on A3 but the secondary headline on that page caught my eye.
"Debate: Professor says real trees can reduce global warming"
At this point, I knew that my enjoyment was probably over and my scientist hat would have to come on because the statement in most cases would not be correct. That part of the story was extremely flawed. I am going to leave names out of this because I have dealt with enough paper interviews to know that one of two things may have happened. I'm going to protect the professor as he may have been misquoted or misunderstood by the reporter. I'll also protect the paper because they could also have been misled due to the fact that this was a professor of forest ecology and tree physiology, and while he may be passionate about the topic, he really is not fully qualified to talk about climate change and greenhouse gasses.
The story attributes (but did not quote the professor) that real Christmas trees are always a better option because they do everything that a regular tree does, which includes reduction of global warming. He is quoted as saying "they take up CO2 and reduce CO2 level in the atmosphere, thus reducing global warming". The attribution is very vague and I'm not a fan of the statement, but his direct quote is true. Trees do take in CO2 which is a greenhouse gas and they are quite effect at this as a chart of CO2 levels shows and definitive reduction each year during the Northern Hemisphere growing season. However, the end of the paragraph shows a very grave error. "When people get rid of real Christmas trees, they decompose and release their nutrients back into the soil". Yes, a properly disposed and mulched tree will help garden soil, but the CO2 that was stored in the tree is then release back into the atmosphere. The same CO2 levels chart shows that there is a definitive increase during the winter when tree matter decomposes. Therefore, there really no "net gain" in combating greenhouse gasses. In fact, the burning of trees (which many do) and the placement in landfills will speed the negative effects of these live trees.
As you can tell, my Monday morning paper reading became a little more annoying than usual. But when I finished up with the comics, I found an environmental message in a Blondie cartoon, that while still had inaccuracies, it sent a better environmental message than the professor. Dagwood was at a tree farm in front of an "earth friendly" tree. He asked how that was possible and the salesman responded "it's silk! So it doesn't mess up the ozone's natural balance like nasty ol' planet-trashing pine trees". While ozone is very important, saving life by being in the upper atmosphere and being harmful near the ground, it is not really a factor in this fight. I think the writer was putting out a statement about the environment that technically is true; though Dagwood decided to take the guild-infested pine tree anyway.
So why do I say that the cartoonist put a better environmental statement than the environmentalist? It's simple and I will use myself as an example. My wife introduced to me to the tradition of cutting down a live tree each year. Meanwhile, my sister puts up the same artificial tree that my parents did from when I was a kid. Hands down, she is doing more for the environment in this case. She is not driving a car to get the tree. She is reusing plastic that will last forever. I try to make up for our family tradition in other ways. But I will not state that I am doing the environmentally correct thing to justify the live tree like our friendly professor. What I will do is what he failed and that is taking the opportunity to point out the perfect scenario. If you want to do your share, buy a live tree with a root ball. Once Christmas is done, plant the tree someplace where it will store decades of CO2 before breaking down after dying. Being truly environmental usually takes effort. Unfortunately, more effort than people are willing to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment