{"id":3294,"date":"2016-12-19T08:30:18","date_gmt":"2016-12-19T07:30:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/?p=3294"},"modified":"2017-04-18T13:10:09","modified_gmt":"2017-04-18T12:10:09","slug":"which-tree-is-greener","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/2016\/12\/19\/which-tree-is-greener\/","title":{"rendered":"Which Tree is Greener ?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"IMG-20161218-WA0001\"<\/a>A friend’s daughter convinced him to have a “Vegan Christmass Tree<\/strong>” this year which essentially involved\u00a0tying a number of fallen branches together<\/strong> such that they formed\u00a0a tree like shape thus avoiding\u00a0cutting down a living tree.<\/p>\n

In my MBA class<\/a>, book<\/a>, and the new electronic course available on Coursera<\/a>, I make the point that understanding what the true environmental impact of anything really is can be quite complex and decided to look at Christmass Trees<\/strong> in the this week’s post<\/p>\n

Real or\u00a0Artificial ?<\/strong><\/p>\n

While the environmental impact of my friend’s “tree” is clearly very low, most households which have a\u00a0Christmass Trees will either opt for a real tree or an artificial one. As is often the case on the issue of sustainable products, both sides say their product is superior in terms of its having a more benign\u00a0impact on the environment.<\/p>\n

\"images\"<\/a>On its website<\/a>, the American Christmas Tree Association (ACTA), which says it supports companies commercializing both types of trees, has done a study on the issue and determined that \u00a0it requires about the same amount of energy to make one artificial tree as to grow 6 natural trees. Other factors involve how long the tree had to “travel” to get to somebody’s house and also how far the artificial\u00a0tree had to go as it was probably made in China.<\/p>\n

Their advice is that is you keep the artificial tree for 6-9 years, the impact will be less than buying new natural trees every year.<\/p>\n

A different group is called the National Christmas Tree Association (NCTA) which represents christmas tree farmers. The vision of the NCTA is for farm -grown trees to be “part of every Christmas celebration”. The NCTA which is, as you would expect, violently opposed to artificial trees,<\/a> reports that 85% of the ones in the U.S. come from China and highlight a Washington Post article<\/a> which is extremely critical of the working conditions in one factory in China.<\/p>\n

Their view is that real trees are a much greener option as they are renewable, recyclable and that tree farmers actually help the environment.<\/p>\n

\"imgres\"<\/a>For its part, GreenPeace<\/a> clearly favors real Christmas trees and insists that they are, by definition, carbon neutral. The tree will have consumed as much carbon in its young life as will be released when burned or left to decompose. The eco friendly activists group is much more concerned about the PVC derivatives that most artificial \u00a0trees are made of and the eventual disposal of the “tree” at the end of its life, whenever it is.<\/p>\n

Common sense?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Like so many things in the sustainability debate it is up to consumers to use their own common sense. If somebody lives in a part of the world with forests and tree farms a few hours away, then the natural tree will be greener.<\/p>\n

If, however, tree farms are far away or non existent and it is likely that the family will re-use an artificial tree for many, many years, then its environmental impact will certainly not be too much more than importing trees every year from someplace far away and might even be less.<\/p>\n

Of course a Chanukah Menorah lasts for many years\u00a0and only uses a few candles.<\/p>\n

Best wishes for the holidays……..<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This holiday season many families will put up a Christmas Tree and will either opt for a real tree or an artificial one. As is often the case on the issue of sustainable products, both sides say their product is superior in terms of its having a more benign impact on the environment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":788,"featured_media":3308,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3294","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","megacategoria-mc-sustainability"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3294","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/788"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3294"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3294\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3316,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3294\/revisions\/3316"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3308"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.iese.edu\/doing-business\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}