Warmists who kill lots of trees to publish a newspaper just can’t help themselves
(Washington Post) Each side offers what it considers compelling evidence.
Real fir — along with pine and spruce — has benefits beyond a fresh smell that says Christmas, supporters say. The trees’ purchase encourages farmers to keep planting acres that absorb carbon dioxide from the air, soak up storm-water runoff full of nutrient and sediment pollution before it pours into waterways such as the Chesapeake Bay, and provide habitat for wildlife.
The real trees also have a smaller carbon footprint than ones made with plastic and shipped mostly from factories in China, said Stephanie Flack, Potomac River Project director for the Nature Conservancy. “This time of year, while people are thinking of gifts they get from under the tree, they should be thinking about the gift from trees,†Flack said.
But the American Christmas Tree Association would say that Freshley’s fake-tree purchase was the greener choice. The group cites a study to support its view that fake trees have a lower carbon footprint — if consumers hold on to fake trees for six to 10 years — considering the energy it takes to chop, water and transport fresh trees annually.
Can’t they just give it a break for a change? Is it really necessary to drag everything into their unhinged pseudo-religion? I’d say these people need to get a hobby, but, this is their hobby. Complaining about how Everyone Else puts out CO2, right before they jump in the full sized SUV to hit the grocery store and pick the kids up, then have a big holiday cocktail party and say everyone else should drive a hybrid.
Ah yes!
But which one hurts the environment more: Sugar cookies and sweets in a stocking (hung by a chimney with care, of course) or a lump of coal in the same stocking?
They are getting the coal, so I hope they are happy.