Experts gave advice on choosing the best Christmas tree.
Every December, when the lights come on at home and the air is filled with the smell of pine needles, one question arises: which Christmas tree is better for the planet — live or artificial. This was reported in Forbes magazine.
At first glance, a natural Christmas tree seems to be more environmentally friendly: it is grown in local soil, biodegradable and "natural". However, the complete ecological footprint of the tree includes not only production, but also transportation, care, fertilizers, and post-holiday processing. In the USA, more than 15,000 farms have been growing trees for 7-10 years, and similar cycles operate in Europe. The transportation of millions of trees by trucks and the cost of care lead to the emission of about 10 kg of CO2 per tree per season, of which 2-5 kg is accounted for by transport.
Artificial Christmas trees are made from plastic and metals in energy-intensive factories in Asia and shipped across oceans. One such path adds about 10 kg of CO2, and the total footprint of an artificial tree can reach 60 kg. However, when used for 10 years, the carbon footprint drops to 6 kg per year, which is sometimes lower than that of a live Christmas tree.
The main thing that distinguishes a "green" Christmas tree is not the material, but the organization of the supply chain. The use of AI allows you to simulate the entire product lifecycle, optimize production and logistics, predict demand and minimize recycling and waste. This approach ensures responsible use of resources, reduces the carbon footprint and creates long-term sustainability of the system.
Earlier, on December 17, veterinarians reminded pet owners how to protect them during the holidays. According to experts, when decorating a Christmas tree, it is necessary to leave the lower rows empty, as garlands, tinsel and other decorations pose a danger to the pet.
All important news is on the Izvestia channel in the MAX messenger.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
