Over the past two years, we’ve written periodically on the Paris Climate Accord — namely, what it is and the United States’ withdrawal from it. But what are states doing to uphold America’s commitments under the Paris Climate Accord? One course of action has been the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

What is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative?

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is the first market-based program in the United States to reduce greenhouse gases. They were pretty straightforward with the name. Started in 2009, RGGI specifically targets CO2 emissions from the power sector.

Which states participate in RGGI?

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. New Jersey was an original RGGI member. Governor Chris Christie decided to withdraw the state in 2011.

RGGI is set to expand: New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy will return the state to the RGGI as of January 1, 2020. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf began the process to join RGGI on October 3, 2019, and the process is expected to be completed within two years. 

Pennsylvania’s membership is significant, given that it’s the United States’ No. 2 gas producer and No. 3 coal producer and that it’s “electricity market is larger than most of the other northeastern states combined” (Inside Climate News).

What impact has the RGGI had? 

The nine RGGI states have reduced CO2 emissions by 47% over the past decade. That’s 90% faster than the rest of the nation, according to a study by clean energy nonprofit Acadia Center. Moreover, “economic growth in the RGGI states has outpaced the rest of the country by 31%” (Acadia Center). How ‘bout that?

What comes next?

To build on the RGGI, twelve northeastern states will try to finalize plans in early 2020 to launch the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI), which will tackle carbon emissions from cars and trucks.

The TCI will auction pollution allowances to fuel suppliers, and each year the cap on the number of allowances will decline. The proceeds from the auctions will be “invested in electric vehicle infrastructure, mass transit, and other improvements designed to curb carbon emissions” (Inside Climate News).

The TCI has bipartisan support and will be chaired by Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker.

Sources:

“The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,” RGGI, Inc., 2019.

“The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Ten Years in Review,” Acadia Center, September 17, 2019.

Lavelle, Marianne, “A Major Fossil Fuel State Is Joining RGGI, the Northeast’s Carbon Market,” Inside Climate News, October 3, 2019.

Lavelle, Marianne, “States Vowed to Uphold America’s Climate Pledge. Are They Succeeding?” Inside Climate News, December 24, 2019.

In the wake of China’s 2017 ban on the import of mixed paper and mixed plastic, Waste Management and other large waste haulers looked to poor countries as an export alternative. Over the last two years it became clear that the receiving countries could not process the volume of trash exported by the United States. Waste mismanagement led to environmental and social harm. 

Waste Management now sells 77% of its recyclable materials to domestic markets. In an August press release, WM said, “The company is working to help establish responsible domestic markets for recycling and beneficial use of these materials.” The company has further stated that “where there is no market, we are disposing of this material responsibly.”

This seems to be the start of a growing global trend, as Australia’s Prime Minister has said the country should be responsible for its own waste and as the Dutch State Secretary has called for plastic waste exports to stop. 

What do you think about the ban of plastic waste exports? Let us know in the comments!

Sources:

“The Largest Trash Collectors in the U.S. Have Stopped Shipping Waste to Poor Countries,” Good News Network, Oct. 21, 2019.

“U.S. Waste & Recycling Companies Positions on Plastic Waste Exports,” The Last Beach Cleanup, accessed Oct. 22, 2019.

Wheeler, Perry, “Waste Management, Casella announce halt to plastic waste exports to countries with poor waste management,” Green Peace, Oct. 16, 2019.

Doran, Matthew and Macmillan, Jade, “Ban on recyclable waste exports looms as political leaders commit to a phase out,” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Aug. 9, 2019.

“Plastic waste export should be stopped,” Weekly News Review, June 17, 2019.

The strikes were designed to protest business and government inaction on the climate crisis. Occurring on September 20 and 27, the strikes bookended the UN Climate Action Summit, at which leaders from the international community gathered to discuss the decrease of greenhouse gas emissions under the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

The UN Climate Action Summit yielded mixed results. The United States was silent. China made no promises of stronger climate action. Yet 65 countries committed to net-zero emissions by 2050, a number of asset fund managers said they will strive toward a net-zero portfolio of investments by 2050, and dozens of businesses committed to the Paris Agreement targets.

Thunberg, who spoke at the UN summit, is the 16-year-old who has become the face of the youth movement. Since August 2018 she’s skipped school on Fridays to protest inaction on climate change outside the Swedish Parliament. Thirteen months later, thousands of young climate activists do the same as part of the Fridays for Future movement.

Did you or someone you know participate the Global Climate Strikes? Share your experience with us in the comments section.

Sources:

Barclay, Eliza and Resnick, Brian, “How big was the global climate strike? 4 million people, activists estimate.” Vox, September 22, 2019.
Irfan, Umair, “Greta Thunberg is leading kids and adults from 150 countries in a massive Friday climate strike,” Vox, September 20, 2019.
Sengupta, Somini and Friedman, Lisa, “At U.N. Climate Summit, Few Commitments and U.S. Silence,” The New York Times, September 24, 2019.

In October 2018 officials tested the tap water and found elevated levels of lead. They distributed faucet filters — the same kind that were used in Flint, Michigan, where a similar clean water crisis has been ongoing since 2014. These filters were meant to remove the lead that leached into the tap water from lead service pipes. 

Two weeks ago new tests found that some of the filters failed to remove the lead. Just like Flint, Newark was forced to distribute water bottles. Just like Flint, last week saw New Jerseyans in lines a hundred people deep, waiting to receive bottled water. Newark has thousands more lead service lines than Flint, and most of these service lines run under private property.

On Monday, August 26, Newark officials announced a $120 million plan to replace 18,000 lead service pipes in the next 24 to 30 months. According to Mayor Ras Baraka, city officials initially estimated that this plan would take a decade to complete. City and county officials are working to approve the financing, after which contractors will present bids to the city.

Since most of the lead service lines are laid under private property, the pipe replacement project presents some tricky obstacles. City officials cannot unilaterally replace the pipes without property owners’ consent. Yet Mayor Baraka said that he hopes to work with legislators to create a new law or ordinance that would allow city contractors to replace lead service lines on private property without permission.

Approximately 800 of Newark’s 18,000 lead service lines have been replaced in 2019.

Do you have an idea on how city and municipal officials can work together to help Newark fix the water crisis? Get in touch with us at hello@remyndr.org or leave a comment.

Corasaniti, Nick, “Newark Water Crisis: Racing to Replace Lead Pipes in Under 3 Years,” The New York Times, August 26, 2019.

PFAS chemicals are used to produce stain- and waterproof clothing and nonstick cookware. As they do not break down over time, they accumulate in the environment. The NJDEP order claims, “They can harm fetuses and newborns, and have been associated with kidney and testicular cancer, autoimmune illnesses and decreased responses to vaccines.”

PFOA and PFOS are two chemicals in the PFAS chemical family. On April 1, 2019, NJDEP issued a proposed rule that sought to list the two chemicals as “hazardous substances” under the Spill Act. A determination has not yet been made.

NJDEP claims that 3M knew these two chemicals were “harmful to people and the environment, including based on its own studies from as early as the 1970s.” While the Spill Act allows NJDEP to request information on discharged pollutants, Donald J. Camerson, principal at Bressler, Amery & Ross, wrote on behalf of 3M that “useful products supplied by 3M are not ‘pollutants.’” Moreover, since PFOA and PFOS chemicals are not yet hazardous substances under the Spill Act, 3M says that the directive is “fundamentally flawed” and “premature.”

Chemours and DuPont filed a joint response, in which they claim that the NJDEP order is “not just unprecedented but untenable.” They argue that New Jersey environmental laws are meant to be applied to specific discharge locations rather than statewide. Also they argue that the order fails to establish a “causal nexus between a given discharge or contamination and the responsible party,” which they say defies New Jersey law.

Meanwhile, Solvay claims that the NJDEP order is “unprecedented in scope and devoid of meaningful or reasonable substantiation.” It declined to repay the $3.1 million that New Jersey spent for a cleanup of PFAS chemicals near its West Deptford facility, yet it acknowledged the need to investigate contamination near said facility.

While the four companies refuse to pay, they have all agreed to “work with” NJDEP in regards to contamination in and around their facilities. Yet in case the companies refuse to pay or are deliberately slow to act, the state maintains the right to charge them up to three times the amount of money spent in its statewide cleanup efforts.

Sources:

“3M, DuPont Refuse to Pay for New Jersey Chemical Cleanup,” Bloomberg, 2019.
“Companies refuse to pay clean-up costs mandated by New Jersey directive,” ChemicalWatch, 2019.
“Spill Compensation and Control Act,” State of New Jersey, 2019.
“Statewide PFAS Directive, Information Request and Notice to Insurers,” State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 2019.

PFAS are used to produce stain- and waterproof clothing and non-stick cookware. Sometimes called “forever chemicals,” PFAS do not break down over time; rather, they accumulate in the environment. The state claims, “They can harm fetuses and newborns, and have been associated with kidney and testicular cancer, auto-immune illnesses and decreased responses to vaccines.” All good things.

The cost of contamination cleanup could rise to hundreds of millions of dollars. If the five companies cited refuse to comply or are deliberately slow to act, the state could charge them three times the amount of money spent in the cleanup. Chemours has said that it has decided to reduce air and water PFAS discharge by at least 99 percent, and Solvay has said that it has begun “remediation efforts” at its West Deptford, New Jersey facility. As of this writing, 3M, Dow DuPont, and Dupont have not commented.

Catherine McCabe, the New Jersey environmental protection commissioner, recommends that consumers avoid products that use PFAS. While the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) cites brands such as Gore-Tex, Scotchgard, Stainmaster, Teflon, and Tyvek, McCabe acknowledges that it is hard to know whether PFAS are present in a particular item of clothing or cookware. However, she says that the DEP will determine whether the plans proposed by the five companies are sufficient to address the problem.

To learn more about PFAS, click on these links:

EPA – Basic Information on PFAS
EPA – PFAS Infographic
NJ DEP – Emerging Contaminants
CDC – PFAS and Your Health
The Intercept – Nationwide Class Action Lawsuit

Source:
Parry, Wayne, “New Jersey orders cleanup of clothing, cookware chemicals,” The Washington Post, March 25, 2019.

Gretchen Carey, president of MassRecycle, tells WBUR, “In the Greater Boston area, 80 to 90 percent of our material had gone to China.” Since the new standard took effect, prices for recycled materials have plummeted. For example, the price of mixed paper has fallen from $75 per ton to less than $5. This shift impacts how MassRecycle conducts business, which affects local municipalities.

WBUR notes that local municipal budgets have been thrown out of order, “Massachusetts cities and towns, which are required to recycle household materials, are now scrambling to pay for something that used to turn a profit.” The cost of increased recycling and processing is substantial. According to Gunther Wellenstein, recycling coordinator for Lowell, the city’s new contract for recycling and processing may cost nearly $500,000 per year.

Coordinators like Wellenstein cover these costs by finding money elsewhere in the budget. Wellenstein says, “Half a million can come out of public safety, public education, economic development.” While some may see this as a waste of municipal funds or as unfair to other public service programs, Wellenstein adds, “You have to pay for the increase in trash.”

Single-stream recycling is another factor that has made China’s new policy so disruptive. Single-stream recycling is the system familiar to most people, in which all recyclable materials are deposited into the same bin and collected for processing. Massachusetts has eight Municipal Recovery Facilities (MRF) that process recycled materials.

According to WBUR, nearly 25 percent of waste collected by the Charlestown MRF cannot be recycled because of contamination or because the material is nonrecyclable. The remaining 75 percent is distributed into a waste stream and sorted into mixed paper, plastics, glass, and metals. Massachusetts’ MRFs are designed to reduce contamination to 3 percent, but they now must work to meet the new 0.5 percent standard.

When China first declined to purchase U.S. recycled materials due to contamination, commodity dealers shipped to new markets in Thailand, in India, and in Vietnam. However, these countries now also refuse to purchase recycled materials from the U.S. This means that much of the waste we recycle ends up in landfills.

Each year Massachusetts produces upward of 5.5 million tons of solid waste, 25 to 35 percent of which is recycled. The rest is deposited across 12 landfills in the state. As those sites reach capacity, up to one-third of the waste tonnage is shipped to Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York for processing and disposal.

Two relatively easy ways for communities to help the problem are to be mindful of what gets recycled and to make sure that materials are indeed recyclable. Wash plastic containers, such as yogurt cups and peanut butter jars. Pizza boxes with grease stains are okay. Bowling balls and other Marie Kondoed household items are not.

On a macro-level, new markets need to be created for recycled materials. Massachusetts has started to offer “grants to cities and local companies so they can buy grinders to turn … recycled glass into an aggregate to use for building sidewalks and roads and filling potholes.” Although no one solution can address every aspect of the problem that the recycling industry faces, smaller cumulative steps go a long way to help.

What other solutions have your community or municipality considered or implemented to help solve the recycling problem? Leave a comment to let us know!

Source:

Gellerman, Bruce, “How a New Policy in China Has Led to a Recycling Crisis in Mass.,” WBUR, accessed March 20, 2019.

What is it?

The Green New Deal is the name of House Resolution 109, which calls the federal government to take broad action against climate change.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14) and Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) introduced the resolution to the House of Representatives on February 7, 2019. Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren (MA) and Cory Booker (NJ) both support it.

What’s in it?

These are the Green New Deal goals:

• “To achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions though a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.”
  
• “To create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”
• “To invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century.”
• “To secure for all people of the United States for generations to come: (i) clean air and water; (ii) climate and community resiliency; (iii) healthy food; (iv) access to nature; and (v) a sustainable environment.”
• “To promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘frontline and vulnerable communities’).”

What is the timeline, and how will these goals be accomplished?

The Green New Deal goals are to be accomplished “through a 10-year national mobilization.” The mobilization requires the following goals and projects:

• “Building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies.”
• “Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including: (i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible; (ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water; (iii) by reducing the risks posed by climate impacts; and (iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change.”
• “Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including: (i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and (ii) by deploying new capacity.”
• “Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity.”
• “Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”
• “Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry.”
• “Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including: (i) by supporting family farming; (ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and (iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food.”
• “Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and (iii) high-speed rail.”
• “Mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies.”
• “Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation.”
• “Restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency.”
• “Cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites.”
• “Identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to remove them.”
• “Promoting the international exchange of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services, with the aim of making the United States the international leader on climate action, and to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal.”

How can the United States achieve all of this?

The resolution details a series of broader goals and projects to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization:

• “Providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization.”
• “Ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through (i) existing laws; (ii) new policies and programs; and (iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected.”
• “Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization.”
• “Making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries.”
• “Directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries.”
• “Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level.”
• “Ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition.”
• “Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”
• “Strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment.”
• “Strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors.”
• “Enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections (i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and (ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States.”
• “Ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused.”
• “Obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples.”
• “Ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies.”
• “Providing all people of the United States with (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.”

What’s next?

If the resolution passes the House, it still requires legislation to have the force of law. Representative Ocasio-Cortez’s office has said that a formal legislative proposal is forthcoming.

Source:

H.Res.109 – Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal, 116th Congress (2019-2020), February 07, 2019.

The EPA inspects industrial sites for pollution violations and compliance with environmental law. The inspection of industrial sites, which include factories, plants, and refineries that deal with chemicals, oil, power, and water treatment, is meant to detect violations that endanger the public health. The shutdown has halted these inspections, as the EPA has furloughed most of its nearly 600 pollution inspectors and compliance monitors.

The obvious risk is the accidental or purposeful emission of hazardous pollutants without detection. This type of pollution can have devastating effects on municipal communities. Think the Porter Ranch gas leak in California. Think Erin Brockovich. It will not be easy to make up these inspections once the shutdown comes to an end.

According to EPA records, pollution inspectors and compliance workers average around 225 inspections per week. While the shutdown is set to cross the three-week mark on Saturday, January 12, according to the New York Times, EPA pollution inspections had stopped by New Year’s Eve. Therefore, as of this writing, nearly 450 inspections have not been conducted.

Let’s break it down on the local level:

For the 2017 fiscal year, in EPA Region 1, which serves Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the EPA reports an estimated 711,000 pounds of “pollution reduced, treated or eliminated,” and an estimated 7 pounds of “hazardous waste treated, minimized, or properly disposed of.” It reports an estimated 3,816,000 cubic yards of “contaminated soil/debris to be cleaned up,” and an estimated 890,000 cubic yards of “contaminated water/aquifer to be cleaned up.”

For the 2017 fiscal year, in EPA Region 2, which serves New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, the EPA reports an estimated 109,635,000 pounds of “pollution reduced, treated or eliminated,” and an estimated 243,333,000 pounds of “hazardous waste treated, minimized, or properly disposed of.” It reports an estimated 6,036,000 cubic yards of “contaminated soil/debris to be cleaned up,” and an estimated 119,476,000 cubic yards of “contaminated water/aquifer to be cleaned up.”

EPA inspections break down into three general categories: First, analysts review emissions reports from industrial companies. If legal violations are found, inspectors go on-site to ensure compliance with environmental law. Second, pollution inspectors conduct in-person, on-site inspections over a period of two to three weeks. Third, compliance workers perform unannounced inspections.

Once the government is up and running again, EPA officials must find a way either to reschedule the inspections that were obstructed by the shutdown or to resume their normal schedule. Either way, there is no one to monitor and detect potential emissions violations for the time being.

Happy New Year.

Sources:

“Enforcement Annual Results for Fiscal Year 2017, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Coral Davenport, “Shutdown Means E.P.A. Pollution Inspectors Aren’t on the Job,” The New York Times, Jan. 9, 2019.

Last month Karen Zraick of the New York Times published an article that examines this very question. Here are the takeaways:

It is not always bad for the environment to cut down trees.

While “cutting down trees” conjures logging, deforestation, and extinction, the reality is that most people don’t scour the woods at Christmas, armed with bow saws and balers, in search of the perfect Douglas fir. Christmas trees, whether cut down or bought on a lot, are grown on farms.

Christmas tree farms! They may not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Christmas trees, but they have a certain holiday romance about them. Zraick points out that real Christmas trees, then, are a crop.

For every tree that is felled at Christmas time, farmers tend to plant another in its place. And as these new trees grow, they clean the air and provide habitats and watersheds. Zraick also notes that Christmas tree farms preserve open land by virtue of their existence. That flips our original question on its side and raises another:

What’s more eco-friendly, to cut down a real Christmas tree from a local farm or to develop the land on which those farms sit for commercial use?

The reuse of artificial trees reduces their environmental impact.

The American Christmas Tree Association (ACTA; and yes, that’s a real thing) conducted a 2017 study, which found that 81 percent of the Christmas trees displayed in America are artificial. Most of these trees are made of copper, PVC plastic, and steel.

That may not seem eco-friendly, but according to Zraick, “The A.C.T.A., which represents manufacturers, claims the environmental impact is lower than that of a real tree if you use the artificial tree for five or more years.” There’s a fair chance that the A.C.T.A. makes this claim in order to get people to buy more artificial trees, but it raises another interesting question in how we measure the greenness of our Christmas trees:

Is it more eco-friendly to buy a real tree every year or to buy an artificial tree and replace it every five years?

We think it’s more eco-friendly to buy a real tree, as they are biodegradable and can be more readily used toward sustainable ends. Real trees can be used as mulch to enrich soil and prevent erosion at beaches or parks, or they can be sunk into lakes to create habitats for underwater wildlife.

On the other hand, artificial trees are harder to recycle. The copper, PVC plastic, and steel need to be separated in order to be processed and reused. And this assumes that the artificial tree makes it to a recycling plant rather than a landfill in the first place.

The greenest tree is bought locally and recycled responsibly.

In our view, the most eco-friendly option is to buy real trees from your local Christmas tree farm or lot and to recycle the tree responsibly — preferably before spring. To recycle the tree, consider gifting it to your neighborhood compost or mulch heap. Or sink it in your town’s lake. Or chop it up and use it as firewood. You’ll support not only the environment, but your local economy, too.

Zraick notes at the end of her article that Christmas trees are just a “drop in the bucket” when compared to the environmental impact of air travel and holiday shopping. To learn more about how you can reduce the impact of holiday waste, read our blog article from 2016.

The next time your Greenpeace cousin gives you flack for having a real tree in your home, we urge you to have the conversation about real Christmas trees versus artificial ones. If you’re not into the idea of spending time with family this holiday season, you have a great excuse that won’t hurt anyone’s feelings: “I’m sorry, Aunt Gladys. I’m not coming home to save the environment.”

Happy holidays from everyone at Remyndr. We hope that, however you choose to celebrate, your holidays are warm and bright.

Source:

Karen Zraick, “Real vs. Artificial Christmas Trees: Which Is the Greener Choice?” The New York Times, 2018.