Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The ecological damage of a single artificial tree vastly outweighs that of cutting down many trees (don't remember the exact numbers). - Source
My main ask then because it does matter is how many real trees cut down is the equivalent. As said it's done for me, artificial tree is up right now so moving forward it doesn't make sense for me to abandon that. For those who don't have one though, how long would they have to own the artificial tree?
I'll admit I'm skeptical of the statement because it's a common technique that has been used to prevent people from choosing greener alternatives. The great EV debate has been plagued with it, with people bellowing that the cost of mining the minerals means you should just drive ICE cars when in reality if your EV rolls over 15,000 miles you've officially hit the tipping point.
Same thing with new stoves, water heaters, a lot of pro-oil will claim "Well manufacturing alone means that you're actually hurting the environment, you wouldn't want to do that now would you?" and put the blame back on the consumer when in reality most of those purchases become carbon neutral usually after a year or two of standard use. Now for the trees if it's 20 years... maybe. Even then I wonder about the potential of those 10' fir trees growing into full adult trees and what we cut short by cutting them down. (Granted I know most are farmed now, but even then, it'd have be be multiple decades for it to make sense in my book)
Just went back through the episode and they some artificial trees may have less environmental impact if used for at least 5 years. However, some other things to consider, first where do you think the plastics in the artificial tree come from? That's right, PETROLEUM! Also, artificial trees will end up in a landfill once they reach their end of life while a real tree is 100% biodegradable. Lastly, most artificial trees come from oversees (mostly China) whereas getting a live tree is a great way of supporting local businesses. Of course now that you have an artificial tree you're better off using that as long as possible to minimize the environmental impact.
I mean, yeah of course that's why it was the first thing I called out