“Paper or plastic?” was the old supermarket question, and it still rolls around every year at Christmas. But when it comes to carbon emissions of a real or fake Christmas tree, the debate can get heated.

Specifically, there’s an intense discussion around the idea of which is better for the environment.

Trees – the real kind – are, after all, carbon sinks. Cutting one down to place it in your living room for a few weeks seems wasteful. 

On the other hand, replacing something all-natural and all-organic with yet another non-recyclable, plastic imitation feels as un-green as it can get.

So, when it comes to Christmas tree carbon emissions, which is worse – paper, or plastic?

The Real vs. Fake Debate and CO2 Emissions

The debate about “environmentally friendly” Christmas trees boils down to one important stat: CO2 emissions. 

On the surface, the debate seems to favor fake trees. If real trees are carbon sinks, cutting them down provides one less way to lock away atmospheric carbon. And that’s one more way to release that CO2 back into the air.

But as it turns out, things aren’t that simple regarding trees.

Manufactured or Grown?

In the U.S., there are about 25 to 30 million real Christmas trees sold every year, according to the National Christmas Tree Association. 

Also, there are nearly 350,000 acres in production for growing Christmas Trees in the U.S.; much of these productions preserve green space.

When it comes to growing Christmas trees, the time can range from 5 to 15 years to grow a tree depending on the growth conditions. But on average it takes 7 years to grow a 6-7 ft Christmas tree.

Cutting down trees sounds bad, but making them might be even worse. A closer look at average carbon emissions for both real and artificial Christmas trees paints a clearer picture.

CO2 emissions for a real Christmas tree: Keep the carbon locked away

Time for the headline stat: 0 kg of CO2.

That’s the amount of CO2 your annual Christmas tree releases if you cut it, use it, then chip it up (using renewable power) and spread it on your garden.

Why nothing? Because trees lock away carbon primarily in their trunks.

True, forget to water the tree after you’ve brought it in, and you’ll see needles everywhere. But even when those needles decay, the CO2 they release is negligible. It’s the trunk and branches that matter after all.

And if you grind those up at the end of Christmas, you produce long-lasting bark mulch that releases CO2 very slowly over several years as part of a natural process.

Of course, not everyone has a wood chipper around to dispose of their tree. Toss your old tree in the landfill, and the resulting decomposition (which releases methane, as well as CO2) results in about 16 kg of CO2e per 6.5-foot tree.

It’s actually better to simply burn your old Christmas tree. This is a simple one-for-one exchange, as burning the tree releases all the CO2 it had absorbed over its life – for an average Christmas tree, roughly 4 kg of CO2. Burning does not result in the extra methane emissions, making it a more emissions-friendly option.

By far the best option is to use a potted tree. Bring the same one in, year after year, or plant it and purchase a new one to repeat the process – and kickstart your own personal Christmas tree offset program.

Carbon emissions for a fake Christmas tree: Production footprint

What about fake trees?

On the plus side, there’s no methane from decomposition, and no release of CO2.

But that’s about as good as it gets. Fake trees are generally made from plastic and metal. Both of them traditionally rely on carbon-intensive manufacturing methods and account for roughly 70% of a plastic tree’s carbon footprint.

Moreover, between 80%-90% of the artificial Christmas trees sold each year in the US – somewhere around 10 million trees – are produced in China. To calculate the true carbon footprint of your average artificial tree, you also need to include transportation and production costs.

That’s why the average artificial tree carries a carbon emissions cost of around 40kg, compared to the 3.5-16kg per real tree. 

At the end of the day, artificial trees are largely plastic. Oil-based production plus global shipping costs tend to result in high carbon emissions.

Real Christmas Trees: Ongoing Reforestry Offsets

To make the Christmas tree carbon emissions math work, each fake tree would need to be reused between 4-10 times before it resulted in less emissions than a real tree. 

And even if that were the case, artificial trees would still take up space in a landfill, without the benefit of being biodegradable.

In contrast, for every Christmas tree cut down, around another three trees are planted each year. 

Real trees result in lower shipping costs and reduced emissions from transport in comparison to artificial trees: the average real tree travels a little over 200 miles from source to final destination, while plastic trees can cover over 8000 miles on their trip from manufacturing in Asia to other global markets.

The Christmas tree industry operates as a market-induced carbon offset mechanism. Thousands of Christmas tree farms sequester as much as one tonne of carbon per acre. And trees are generally replanted as fast as or faster than they are cut. 

Christmas tree co-benefits:

Supports local farmers and producers
Encourages young-growth forests (trees are typically cut after seven years
Easy to recycle
Filters air and produces oxygen while inside
Can be used in aquatic or riparian environments to encourage diversity

The result is a carbon-neutral industry that removes nearly as much CO2e as it emits. Even The Nature Conservancy acknowledges that the real Christmas tree industry plays a vital role in the push for forest restorations that could account for 30% of the carbon emissions reductions the world desperately needs.

Not to mention that the great Christmas tree industry employs ~100,000 people in 15,000 farms across the U.S.

But in the end, the answer is pretty simple; when it comes to Christmas tree carbon emissions, pine beats plastic every time.

The rise and fall of countless civilizations are due to access to two things: water and carbon. Both are essential for sustaining flora and fauna.

When arable regions become a desert wasteland, it shifts capital and populations. The world just surpassed 8 million people, and in the next 15 years it is expected to grow by another billion people.

Being able to reverse desertification will unlock new regions for development.

While turning a desert wasteland into a lush green carbon oasis seem like a massive undertaking, it’s already happening across the globe.

First some basics.

Desertification is the long-term degradation of dryland ecosystems by human activities, indirectly through climate change or directly through bad land management or overuse.

+75% of the Earth’s land area is degraded
+90% could become degraded by 2050.
By 2050, the global economy could lose US$23 trillion through land degradation.
Globally, the world loses arable land the size of Saudi Arabia each year.
Climate change is estimated to reduce global crop yields by about 10% by 2050. Parts of Asia and MENA (Middle East and North Africa) could see their crop production cut in half.

Desertification is a causing factor in the early human migration off of Africa. They followed the water and trees, much like the animals did.

Desertification has been identified as one of the top 3 environmental challenges back in 1992.

About 1/3rd of the Earth’s land is covered by desert (as determined by precipitation). All continents have deserts, yet their types and sizes vary widely.

Deserts are frequently among the least populated places on earth since they are thought to have challenging living conditions.

The 5 Largest Deserts Regions In The World

Antarctic & Artic – 10.9 million square miles
MENA Region (Sahara, Arabian, and Syrian deserts) – 4.7 million square miles
North America’s “Big 4” (Great Basin, Mohave, Chihuahuan, and Sonoran) – 0.5 million square miles
Asia’s Gobi – 0.5 million square miles

The biggest non-polar region is the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA), the host of the largest subtropic deserts in the world – the Sahara.

The Sahara Desert has grown by 10% since 1920, and a third of its current size is due to climate change.

The overall MENA region is divided into the have or have nots – minerals reserves, oil reserves, carbon reserves (vegetation), and water reserves.

The region is surprisingly flush with water resources although it’s deep underground.

The overall volume of “fossil water” is estimated to be over 4 billion barrels. That is over 100 times the annual renewable freshwater resources and 20x the freshwater stored in African lakes.

To get to this will need massive water drilling programs. Libya is building the “Great Man-Made River” the world’s largest underground network of pipes and aqueducts.

To extract this water resource, it needs to be economically viable, and carbon credits help tip the scales.

Water can help turn the deserts back into arable lands, this opens the immense potential for carbon credit generation from all the new greenery.

Carbon credit and biodiversity credits can improve the quality of life (in their region).

How do you control the temperature and climate?

The MENA region was once green and lush, but over time desertification occurred. There only remains a few oases serving as a reminder of the region’s former glory.

Fortunately, turning deserts back into arable regions can happen with proper planning and implementation of technology and nature-based solutions.

To stop the “spreading cancer” known as the Sahara Desert, a massive oasification project is already underway called the “African Great Green Wall”.

It’s an ambitious plan to develop a wide wall of trees to hold back the expanding Sahara Desert.

This 8,000 km natural wonder would cut across the whole continent of Africa from Senegal to Djibouti, affecting 11 countries along the way.

If completed, it would be the largest living structure on the planet. It’s 3x the size of the Great Barrier Reef.

The hope is that the trees will slow soil erosion, slow wind speeds, and help rainwater filter into the ground.

More fertile soils will help communities across the Sahel with land grazing and agriculture.

The African Green Wall hopes to reach its goal by 2030, but with funding drying up and regional disputes, its future remains in limbo.

African Great Green Wall’s execution has not gone as well as planned, with over 80% of the planted trees have died. Researcher Chris Reij stated:

“If all the trees that had been planted in the Sahara since the early 1980s had survived, it would look like Amazonia.”

Another MENA nation that is making major moves towards bringing back arable land is oil-rich Saudi Arabia.

Not too long ago the Middle East was a tropical paradise, and Saudi Arabia is working toward bringing it back to its former glory.

Saudi Arabia is the 9th most powerful nation in the world and one of the most water-scarce nations on the planet.

Surprisingly Saudi Arabia is behind only the U.S. and Canada for per capita water consumption. The Kingdom uses 4 times as much water as it can renew. Plus, it uses 2x the water of an average nation per capita.

Major conservation efforts are at work to protect their other vital resource as water is essential for making the region green again – and to go net zero.

Saudi Arabia has also announced “Vision 2030”, a project to diversify the economy and move away from its dependency on oil.

With the proceeds of their remaining oil, Saudi Arabia is now starting to drill for their next precious resource behind oil – water.

The more water they stockpile the greener their country and economy can be.

The image below looks like an alien crop circle, but these are essentially carbon crop circles.

This “Center Pivot Irrigation” technology was developed in the US and requires less water, resources, and maintenance.

Water is pumped up from underground river channels and aquifers from depths of 1km (0.6 mile).

Each circle will be able to generate carbon credits after the soil begins to take root again and as they begin to store more carbon (and water) in the plants and soil.

To give some context, in 1971, Saudi Arabia had only 3.5 million acres of arable land (0.7% of its total land mass). But in 2020, that ballooned up to 8.5 million acres – that growth is roughly the size of Slovenia.

Yet, they will run out of water underground eventually, so they need new sources of water.

Making Water from the sea and the sky

Constructing dams can capture the rainfall surges from storms to be used later. Countries have also been exploring making their own storms using “Cloud Seeding”.

Cloud seeding works by shooting salt flares into the clouds. As salt naturally attracts water, the water particles collide with others to help with rainfall.

Saudi Arabia is also the world’s biggest user of desalinating plants which turn seawater into freshwater.

They have announced the world’s first Solar Power Desalination Plant. This cutting-edge technology is the most efficient desalination project yet.

Carbon credits are now available for desalination plants that switch to renewable power.

Scientists are even working on creating carbon-negative desalination plants, so they suck up more carbon than they emit.

The concept is to take advantage of the magnesium by-product in the concentrated brine which the desalination plant rejects. This is still in the very experimental stages, but it could show some promise in the future.

Wind & Solar

Using large-scale solar and wind farms can create microclimates.

Large wind farms mix hotter air from above with cooler air below, which brings slightly more initial heat to the ground. The turbines also interrupt the smoothness of the desert wind. This slows the wind speed and traps that heat further.

The trapped heat changes the atmospheric conditions above and can double the typical rainfall (in lab simulations).

The rain helps plants grow, and as they begin to take root, they also provide more green cover. The green cover lowers the amount of sun reflected off the desert surface. And so, it helps bring in more rain.

Solar farms can decrease the amount of sun bounced back into the atmosphere even more.

By combining large-scale solar and wind projects, has the potential to change the local climate.

And Saudi Arabia recently announce they are doubling its investment in renewables.

They are planning massive projects using clean energy such as the world’s biggest solar thermal plant and the region’s largest wind farm.

These initiatives will heat up the ground temperature in the remote agricultural/carbon farm areas. They’ll also produce more rainwater, making it more and more like the lush tropics.

They’re also planning to create a massive climate-controlled futuristic and green megacity called NEOM, in another region of the country. This NEOM project will be carbon neutral and net zero water – more on the NEOM project here.

With the ability to purchase and fund carbon projects across the world, it raised the question “Are local carbon credits better?”.

Prices for carbon offsets in the voluntary carbon market had one of the worst days in their short history.

Nature Based Offsets (N-GEO) down over 20%.
Aviation (CORSIA Credits) down 8%.
Tech-Based Offsets down 22%.

After enjoying record-breaking carbon prices earlier in the year, liquidity is drying up in the carbon sector.

Vanguard, which oversees $7.1 Trillion in assets, also announced that they pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAMI).

NZAMI had 3 major goals with its initiative:

Work in partnership with asset owner clients on decarbonization goals. That’s consistent with an ambition to reach net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner across all assets under management (‘AUM’).
Set an interim target for the proportion of assets in line with reaching net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner.
Review our interim target at least every five years. Plus, a view to ratcheting up the proportion of AUM covered until 100% of assets are included.

In a statement, Vanguard said:

“We have decided to withdraw from NZAM so that we can provide the clarity our investors desire about the role of index funds… And about how we think about material risks, including climate-related risks—and to make clear that Vanguard speaks independently on matters of importance to our investors.”

Vanguard’s decision to walk out of the world’s largest climate-finance alliance marks the biggest defection to date. Earlier this year, pension firms and an investment consulting firm exited GFANZ.

After that, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Morgan Stanley were considering defection after Race to Zero, a UN-backed entity that underpins GFANZ, mandated members to “phase down and out unabated fossil fuels, including coal.”

Vanguard’s move was made after a “considerable period of review.” And that’s based on a desire to maintain the freedom not to restrict its investment options, they added.

Legal Risks of Failing to Meet Net Zero

Concerns on legal risks are justified because if firms fail to reach their net zero pledges, they could face serious consequences. That may be in the form of significant litigation costs, huge financial penalties, and negative publicity, according to legal advisors.

A founding partner of the NZAMI, VP of Ceres Investor Network commented on this saying:

“It is unfortunate that political pressure is impacting this crucial economic imperative and attempting to block companies from effectively managing risks — a crucial part of their fiduciary duty.”

It will be critical to see which companies follow Vanguard’s exit, or whether they maintain their commitments. And how that will further impact voluntary carbon market prices.

US-owned Hess Corporation entered a deal with Guyana to buy $750 million worth of REDD+ carbon credits from the South American nation in the next decade to support efforts in protecting its Amazonian rainforests.

Hess Corporation is a global energy company specializing in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas. It’s an industry leader in environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance and disclosure.

Hess is a major partner with ExxonMobil and CNOOC of China in Guyana’s offshore project, the “Stabroek Block”. It’s one of the world’s largest oil and gas discoveries near Suriname’s border.

The multi-year agreement with Guyana that runs from 2022 to 2032 is under the UN Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation program (REDD+). It involves Hess’ purchase of 37.5 million REDD+ jurisdictional carbon credits (current and future issuances).

This is the second major deal the country has entered in the past decade. In 2009, Norway had agreed to provide $250 million to help ensure Guyana’s 18 million hectares of forest remains intact.

Guyana REDD+ Carbon Credits

The REDD+ carbon credits will be under the ART (Architecture for REDD+ Transactions) registry. ART operates a robust, secure, transparent electronic system to register REDD+ programs. It also records the issuance, transfer, and retirement of serialized verified credits.

The initiative seeks to incentivize governments to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, restore forests, and protect intact forests.

The REDD+ carbon credits Hess will buy from Guyana will be issued under ART’s REDD+ Environmental Excellence Standard 2.0 (TREES). The program quantifies, monitors, reports, and verifies emission reductions from REDD+ activities at a jurisdictional and national scale.

Remarking on the partnership, President Irfaan Ali said:

“As one of only nine national jurisdictions in the Amazon Basin, we said long ago that national or jurisdiction-scale action on forests, coupled with access to global private finance, could create solutions that benefit the peoples of forest-rich countries while also achieving global climate goals…”

He further noted that the deal represents a massive step forward in “showing the world that developing countries can lead the way to global solutions”.

The government also says it will pursue efforts to attract more partners in the carbon credits market as Guyana works to reduce harvests of forest resources in a country the size of Britain with less than 1 million population.

Avoiding deforestation is critical to the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit the global temperature rise to well below 2°C. It’s one of the major commitments at the COP26 summit where 130+ countries, including Guyana, pledged to end deforestation by 2030.

Officials in the U.S. recently announced plans to sanction Amazon deforesters.

Low Carbon Development & Net Zero

The deal is also part of Guyana’s Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) 2030. It outlines how the country’s rainforest resources can help combat climate change while promoting a sustainable, low carbon economy.

Guyana’s ~18 million hectares of forests that can store about 20 billion tonnes of CO2e. Its LCDS 2030 serves as the small nation’s roadmap for preserving its forests while growing its economy, too.

At the signing ceremony, Hess Corp. CEO John Hess commented:

“Guyana is one of the most heavily forested countries in the world. We admire the efforts that Guyana has undertaken for years to protect the country’s forest, and provide a strong model for other countries, other businesses and other governments… We are pleased to support the country’s efforts to advance sustainable development and enhance the quality of life for its people.”

Buying REDD+ carbon credits from Guyana is a major part of Hess’ commitment to help address climate change. It’s also important for the company’s net zero emissions target by 2050. The deal adds to the company’s ongoing and successful emissions reduction efforts as laid out in its sustainability reports.

Around 30% of the $750 million investment from Hess will be for developing the Indigenous Amerindian communities. There are nine such tribes in Guyana which accounts for almost 10% of its total population.