When I was growing up, my mother bought a “beaker-brush” Christmas tree. It was all white and made of plastic and wire. Basically a bunch of beaker brushes from a high school chemistry class attached to an aluminum frame. Every year we didn’t have to buy (and kill) a baby spruce tree. It seemed like a sensible idea: buy a renewable tree that could be re-used year after year.

But a new study from a Montreal firm, ellipsos inc., says that buying natural trees for xmas is actually more sustainable in the long run. Here are their conclusions from the report:

The natural Christmas tree has lower impacts on the environment than the artificial tree, according to an independent Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) conducted by ellipsos inc., a firm of experts in sustainable development…“The results are astonishing”, says Jean-Sébastien Trudel, president of ellipsos and co-author of the study. “Considering that the artificial tree is reusable for many years, one would think that this choice is best since the natural tree requires annual trips to purchase it.”

While natural trees also have environmental impacts, the LCA shows that an artificial tree would need to be kept for at least 20 years to be equivalent! Currently, people keep it for six years, on average.

Interestingly, to compensate for the impacts of a Christmas tree, be it natural or artificial, one can offset the carbon emissions by carpooling or biking to work only one to three days per year, according to ellipsos. “Knowing this, the most ecological choice between the natural and the artificial Christmas tree becomes anecdotal. Regardless of the chosen type of tree, the impacts on the environment are negligible if compared to other activities, such as driving solo to work on a daily basis”, concludes Jean-Sébastien Trudel.

Still, getting no tree is the most sustainable solution of all.

Download the full report from ellipos: Christmas Tree Life Cycle Analysis