These are grown on farms, not ripped from the wilderness, you twit. Not to mention that they are organic matter so there really isn't any waste either. Merry Christmas.
This is a joke, right? If it's not, then presumably the author also avoids edible plants, which are also "killed" to indulge our petty desires (after all, no one really NEEDS micro greens, right?). And never pulls weeds (because who are we to judge which plants deserve to live?).
In any case, I've never understood why a petroleum-based product manufactured by poorly paid laborers shipped thousands of miles is considered more morally sound than a sustainable, 100 percent compostable product grown locally and brought to market by people subject to American labor laws.
I choose a living tree to support the family farm that nurtured it for the 8-12 years it takes to get to harvest size. In that time the tree cleans the air and provides wildlife habitat. I also “recycle” the tree by donating it to a local goat rescue in early January - the goats enjoy eating and playing with the trees.
@8, our forests are not "pretty much only pine trees". There's a good reason why the Cascadia flag is a Doug Fir. And if not that, maybe true fir, hemlock or spruce, or even cedar. Pine trees are a relatively small portion of our forests.
But come on guys, when you really think about it, what is clickbait, anyway? Does it even have a definition at all? How could anyone possibly say whether or not a given piece of writing on the internet is "clickbait"?
The 2011 study is bollocks, because it assumed that people throw away the artificial tree after only two years use. In fact, compared to people who buy a tree every year and let it go to landfill, after only 3 years of use an artificial tree breaks even on environmental impact (if the cut tree is composted every year, the break-even only scoots out to six years). While my mom kept reusing hers for 55 years might be an outlier, so far, each of mine has been used for more than 12 years, so...
@12, Why correct Keenan C when he is not wrong. You say "Pine trees are a relatively small portion of our forests.", and then imply that Doug Fir, True Fir, Hemlock, and Spruce make up a majority of trees in the Cascadia region. Bro, you know all those are pine trees, right?
@18: Uhhh....none of those are pine trees. That's like lining up a dog, a cat, a moose and a giraffe, and saying "hey! look, everbody! Check out all these cows! Cows are mammals, and these are mammals -- so they're cows!"
win/win
Just sayin'
Also, I know a few tree farms, and they also grow trees for things like ecological restoration projects.
In any case, I've never understood why a petroleum-based product manufactured by poorly paid laborers shipped thousands of miles is considered more morally sound than a sustainable, 100 percent compostable product grown locally and brought to market by people subject to American labor laws.
Also, this is a dumb article.
Next, Katie; could you do an expose on what a disaster and ecological crime smoking pot is?