Weighing choices for eco-conscious holidays

The Christmas tree

Dilemma: Fake versus real

Of course I'll: Buy a real tree. Nothing smells quite as good, and I'm not increasing the demand for items made of plastic.

Trade-off: It can't be ideal to kill a living, bird's nest-holding, CO{-2}-gobbling tree to enjoy it for less than a month.

Then I'll: Buy an artificial tree. It's reusable.

Trade-off: Most artificial trees come a long way, using fossil fuels for transportation. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, China was the leading foreign source for artificial Christmas trees shipped to the United States ($28.6 million worth).

Experts say: A 2009 independent comparative life-cycle assessment by sustainable development consultants Ellipsos in Montreal found that when compared on an annual basis, an artificial tree given a life span of six years, has three times more impact on climate change and resource depletion than a natural tree.

For each tree harvested, Christmas tree farmers plant one to three new seedlings, balancing the carbon-sequestering properties of the cut tree. As for concerns about pesticides and herbicides applied to the trees, Sam Minturn of the California Christmas Tree Association says, "Most tree farms I know of have some species that are disease free and don't require any pesticides, like incense cedars, Leyland cypress and Sierra redwoods."

Macy says, "The argument for real over artificial can be reduced to: tree farms are renewable and pull CO{-2} out of the atmosphere, often use marginal lands, and the trees can be recycled into mulch or burned for energy. Artificial trees are usually made of PVC shipped from Asia and often contain lead and other toxics."

Verdict: The very best choice is a potted live tree with its root-ball intact that can be replanted after the holidays. In San Francisco, Macy says: "The Dreaming of a Green Christmas program (sfgate.com/ZKRQ) will sell residents a young tree, which will later be planted as a street tree." The next best option is a locally grown tree to reduce transportation costs. Whatever its provenance, check out local tree-recycling programs that turn trees into mulch or compost.

For those who prefer the artificial tree, make it last as long as possible by careful handling and cleaning. According to the Ellipsos study, once the plastic tree has been in use 20 years, it's a better choice than the natural tree.

The decorative lights

Dilemma: Upgrade to more energy-efficient light-emitting diode (LED) models, or extend the life of the conventional incandescent light strings I already have?

Of course I'll: Keep using what I have, and keep them out of the landfill.

Trade-off: Conventional holiday lights use more energy than LEDs.

Then I'll: Invest in the new energy-efficient lights. They're cooler to the touch and present less of a fire hazard, and they'll last longer than conventional lights.

Trade-off: Yet another holiday expense for something used just a few weeks a year.

Experts say: Depending on the size of the bulb, an LED light can use 90 percent less energy than its conventional counterpart. A 2008 report conducted on behalf of the EPA estimated that if U.S. consumers switched entirely from conventional incandescent holiday lighting to LED holiday lights, they'd save enough energy to power approximately 500,000 homes for an entire year.

Lee says, "There's so much energy savings gained by using LEDs that it's really worth doing, even if the incandescent bulbs are still working fine."

Verdict: Switch to LED lights, and run them only at night and when someone is home to admire them. To find a local site to recycle conventional lights, check Earth911.com. There are seasonal recycling events at stores and mail-in programs that will reward you with coupons toward purchasing LED strings.

The candles

Dilemma: With all those holiday candlesticks to fill, what types of candle are best?

Of course I'll: Use paraffin candles. They're everywhere and inexpensive, and I'll even save a little electricity.

Trade-off: Paraffin is the final by-product in the petroleum refining chain. Some studies suggest that paraffin candles can be a health hazard.

Then I'll: Spring for soy or beeswax candles. They burn longer and don't come from fossil fuels.

Trade-off: Ninety-three percent of the domestic soybean harvest comes from genetically modified soybeans.

Experts say: "Paraffin candles release carcinogenic toxins such as benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein and soot into the air," Macy says. "The EPA has determined that benzene and toluene are probable human carcinogens." On the other hand, the National Candle Association underwrote a 2007 study that concluded burning any type of candle poses "no discernible risks to human health or indoor air quality."

Regardless of the debate over health impacts, there's no arguing that paraffin wax is derived from fossil fuels. But are soy candles automatically the better choice? Schildgen is dubious. "Yes, it's a renewable resource, but it takes a toll on soil to use it for nonfood commodities." Macy points out that, manufacturers' claims aside, "there is no way to test soy wax to determine if it was made from a genetically modified soybean."

As for beeswax, Schildgen says, "In light of the bee colony collapse, beeswax candles have gotten much more expensive. And it seems like beeswax could be put to better use than for candles."

Verdict: Don't turn yourself inside out over this. Schildgen says: "Look at the bigger issue: How much gas does it take to get to the store to buy the candles?"