Abstract
This document reported on a study that compared the environmental impacts of a natural versus artificial Christmas tree using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. The LCA followed the recognized ISO 14040 and 14044 standards and it was reviewed by an independent third-party of peers. The purpose of the study was to guide the general public in choosing the best type of Christmas tree based on sustainable development and environmental considerations. The modelled natural tree was harvested in a plantation near Montreal, while the artificial tree was manufactured in China and shipped by boat and train to Montreal via Vancouver. Both trees were assumed to be 7 feet high. The lights and decorations were excluded from the analysis. Calculations for the artificial tree were based on a 6-year life span, the average time an artificial tree is kept in North America. The LCA considered the resources extraction and processing of raw materials, the manufacturing processes, transport and distribution, use, reuse and then recycling and disposal at the end of life. The environmental impacts of the natural and artificial trees showed the impacts of each tree for 4 damage categories, namely human health, ecosystem quality, climate change and resources. It was concluded
More>>
Citation Formats
Couillard, S, Bage, G, and Trudel, J S.
Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of artificial vs natural Christmas tree.
Canada: N. p.,
2009.
Web.
Couillard, S, Bage, G, & Trudel, J S.
Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of artificial vs natural Christmas tree.
Canada.
Couillard, S, Bage, G, and Trudel, J S.
2009.
"Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of artificial vs natural Christmas tree."
Canada.
@misc{etde_21221949,
title = {Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of artificial vs natural Christmas tree}
author = {Couillard, S, Bage, G, and Trudel, J S}
abstractNote = {This document reported on a study that compared the environmental impacts of a natural versus artificial Christmas tree using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. The LCA followed the recognized ISO 14040 and 14044 standards and it was reviewed by an independent third-party of peers. The purpose of the study was to guide the general public in choosing the best type of Christmas tree based on sustainable development and environmental considerations. The modelled natural tree was harvested in a plantation near Montreal, while the artificial tree was manufactured in China and shipped by boat and train to Montreal via Vancouver. Both trees were assumed to be 7 feet high. The lights and decorations were excluded from the analysis. Calculations for the artificial tree were based on a 6-year life span, the average time an artificial tree is kept in North America. The LCA considered the resources extraction and processing of raw materials, the manufacturing processes, transport and distribution, use, reuse and then recycling and disposal at the end of life. The environmental impacts of the natural and artificial trees showed the impacts of each tree for 4 damage categories, namely human health, ecosystem quality, climate change and resources. It was concluded that the natural tree is a better option than the artificial tree, particularly in terms of impacts on climate change and resource depletion. However, the natural tree was found to have important impacts on ecosystem quality. Those who prefer using the artificial tree can reduce their impacts on all categories by increasing the life span of their tree to over 20 years. 6 figs.}
place = {Canada}
year = {2009}
month = {Feb}
}
title = {Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of artificial vs natural Christmas tree}
author = {Couillard, S, Bage, G, and Trudel, J S}
abstractNote = {This document reported on a study that compared the environmental impacts of a natural versus artificial Christmas tree using life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. The LCA followed the recognized ISO 14040 and 14044 standards and it was reviewed by an independent third-party of peers. The purpose of the study was to guide the general public in choosing the best type of Christmas tree based on sustainable development and environmental considerations. The modelled natural tree was harvested in a plantation near Montreal, while the artificial tree was manufactured in China and shipped by boat and train to Montreal via Vancouver. Both trees were assumed to be 7 feet high. The lights and decorations were excluded from the analysis. Calculations for the artificial tree were based on a 6-year life span, the average time an artificial tree is kept in North America. The LCA considered the resources extraction and processing of raw materials, the manufacturing processes, transport and distribution, use, reuse and then recycling and disposal at the end of life. The environmental impacts of the natural and artificial trees showed the impacts of each tree for 4 damage categories, namely human health, ecosystem quality, climate change and resources. It was concluded that the natural tree is a better option than the artificial tree, particularly in terms of impacts on climate change and resource depletion. However, the natural tree was found to have important impacts on ecosystem quality. Those who prefer using the artificial tree can reduce their impacts on all categories by increasing the life span of their tree to over 20 years. 6 figs.}
place = {Canada}
year = {2009}
month = {Feb}
}