Tax x-mas trees to promote benefits of live trees

[Shane for Wax]

www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67933.html

The Obama administration has given the green light for a new fee of 15 cents on all Christmas trees.

The new tax will be used to raise funds for an advertising campaign promoting the benefits of live trees, as opposed to artificial ones. The tax is expected to raise approximately $2 million, according to McClatchy News.

---

But once we cut down those Christmas trees they aren't alive anymore!

[Kit Walker]

My problem is wondering if there is nothing better that $2 million could be used on. Funding a soup kitchen? Toys for Tots? Something?

[tgrwulf]

The hell? This is just stupid, honestly.

Also, I've always had fake trees (because my broter and mother are allergic to pine) and I don't get why some people make such a big deal about having to have a real tree.

[N. De Plume]

Other than supporting Christmas Tree growers, what exactly the benefits of not-really-live trees over artificial?

[Random Guy]

Putting a tax on CHRISTmas trees? WAAAAAAAAAAH ANTI-CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION WHARRGARBL

[Vene]

Nov 9, 2011 11:59:53 GMT -5 N. De Plume said:

Other than supporting Christmas Tree growers, what exactly the benefits of not-really-live trees over artificial?

blog.sustainablog.org/2010/11/real-christmas-trees/

They uptake carbon from the atmosphere instead of releasing it during "production" and they don't release toxic chemicals into the environment when discarded. They are also renewable resource, unlike the ores used for the metallic portions of an artificial tree and the hydrocarbons used to produce the plastic portions.

[The Lazy One]

That is such a random thing to tax.

[N. De Plume]

Nov 9, 2011 12:37:40 GMT -5 Vene said:

Nov 9, 2011 11:59:53 GMT -5 N. De Plume said:

Other than supporting Christmas Tree growers, what exactly the benefits of not-really-live trees over artificial?

blog.sustainablog.org/2010/11/real-christmas-trees/

They uptake carbon from the atmosphere instead of releasing it during "production" and they don't release toxic chemicals into the environment when discarded. They are also renewable resource, unlike the ores used for the metallic portions of an artificial tree and the hydrocarbons used to produce the plastic portions.

All right. Cool.

But has the carbon footprint also taken into account the cost of harvesting, transport, and disposal? It costs a bit of non-renewable gasoline to get out to the Christmas tree farm, after all, whereas it costs none to retrieve my artificial tree from the garage.

If we want to get really picky with the bits of non-renewable metals and plastics, aren’t such materials also used in the saws used to chop them down and the stands used to display the trees?

There is also the land-use issue. If there were an increase in demand for real trees, how much growing land would be required to support that demand? Land is a non-renewable resource. Using more land for Christmas tree farms presents an opportunity cost against other potential uses for the same land.

Just curious if there’s been any attempt to make a thorough cost-benefit analysis of real vs. artificial trees.

And just to make where I am coming from clear: I have a strong distaste for the needless killing of trees. In most cases, I would rather keep the pines and firs alive and growing in the wild. But if the cost-benefit ratio of the real trees really outweighs that of artificial, I would be would be willing to make a move towards the use of real trees. It’s not like I don’t use wooden products. Like I said, my problem is with the needless killing of trees, and I generally consider a decoration that lasts only a month to be needless.

[Dragon Zachski]

Nov 9, 2011 12:37:40 GMT -5 Vene said:

Nov 9, 2011 11:59:53 GMT -5 N. De Plume said:

Other than supporting Christmas Tree growers, what exactly the benefits of not-really-live trees over artificial?

blog.sustainablog.org/2010/11/real-christmas-trees/

They uptake carbon from the atmosphere instead of releasing it during "production" and they don't release toxic chemicals into the environment when discarded. They are also renewable resource, unlike the ores used for the metallic portions of an artificial tree and the hydrocarbons used to produce the plastic portions.

Unlike real trees, though, you can keep the same artificial tree all your life, if you take pains to not let it get damage.

So that's more living Christmas trees to help keep the air clean and not being dead in your living room shedding pine needles all over the place.

[Random Guy]

Nov 9, 2011 13:50:25 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

Nov 9, 2011 12:37:40 GMT -5 Vene said:

blog.sustainablog.org/2010/11/real-christmas-trees/

They uptake carbon from the atmosphere instead of releasing it during "production" and they don't release toxic chemicals into the environment when discarded. They are also renewable resource, unlike the ores used for the metallic portions of an artificial tree and the hydrocarbons used to produce the plastic portions.

Unlike real trees, though, you can keep the same artificial tree all your life, if you take pains to not let it get damage.

So that's more living Christmas trees to help keep the air clean and not being dead in your living room shedding pine needles all over the place.

My family's been using the same artificial tree for about 14 years at this point, so I agree.

[nightangel1282]

Before my dad switched to an artificial Christmas tree, he would just go into the forest and cut down one. We NEVER paid for a Christmas tree until my dad decided he was getting too old to go trudging out into the wilderness. And when Christmas was over, he broke the tree up and threw it in the burning barrel. The pine needles were a pain though...

[Vene]

Nov 9, 2011 13:44:20 GMT -5 N. De Plume said:

Just curious if there’s been any attempt to make a thorough cost-benefit analysis of real vs. artificial trees.

Yes, there has been one done. Live trees won out.

In the most definitive study of the perennial real vs. fake question, an environmental consulting firm in Montreal found that an artificial tree would have to be reused for more than 20 years to be greener than buying a fresh-cut tree annually. The calculations included greenhouse gas emissions, use of resources and human health impacts.

And just to make where I am coming from clear: I have a strong distaste for the needless killing of trees. In most cases, I would rather keep the pines and firs alive and growing in the wild. But if the cost-benefit ratio of the real trees really outweighs that of artificial, I would be would be willing to make a move towards the use of real trees. It’s not like I don’t use wooden products. Like I said, my problem is with the needless killing of trees, and I generally consider a decoration that lasts only a month to be needless.

The land will be used economically in some manner, so this isn't really a question of tree farm or no tree farm. And I think we should heavily encourage mulching down used Christmas trees into compost, whether it is done for a personal garden or done for agriculture.

[N. De Plume]

Nov 9, 2011 14:30:43 GMT -5 Vene said:

Nov 9, 2011 13:44:20 GMT -5 N. De Plume said:

Just curious if there’s been any attempt to make a thorough cost-benefit analysis of real vs. artificial trees.

Yes, there has been one done. Live trees won out.

In the most definitive study of the perennial real vs. fake question, an environmental consulting firm in Montreal found that an artificial tree would have to be reused for more than 20 years to be greener than buying a fresh-cut tree annually. The calculations included greenhouse gas emissions, use of resources and human health impacts.

Well, I wouldn’t necessarily call that a clear win if I were to interpret that statement as saying “Buy an artificial tree and make sure it lasts at least 20 years.” ‘Specially considering most folks spend more than 20 year celebrating Christmas.

But then the article does say that the average life of an artificial tree is 6 years. Not sure if that is from mistreatment or shoddy construction. All I know is the artificial trees my family used have been long-runners. The first one definitely passed the 20-year mark. Not sure how old the current one is—we got it used.

This bit is also problematic with the applicability of the study:

Ellipsos specifically studied the market for Christmas trees bought in Montreal and either grown in Quebec or manufactured in China. Mr. Trudel said the results would most likely differ for other cities and regions. Excessive driving by consumers to purchase real trees could tip the scales back in favor of artificial trees, at least in terms of carbon emissions.

Specific market with easily accessible Christmas tree farms but distantly manufactured artificial trees. If the situation were reversed—you had only distant tree farms but the artificial trees didn’t have very far to travel to reach your house, how would things change?

There is also this:

Jami Warner, executive director of the American Christmas Tree Association, the group promoting artificial trees, said that neither kind of tree had much of an impact on the environment — “especially when compared to something that most of us do every day, like drive a car,” she wrote in an e-mail.

On that point, Mr. Trudel of Ellipsos agrees.

“When you really consider it, if you exchange a couple of days of commuting by car with carpooling or riding a bicycle, you’ll completely overcompensate for whatever the impact of the tree is,” he said. “It’s not such a big deal. Enjoy your tree, whichever one you prefer.”

If true, it seems like for a lot of people, the issue may be a bit of a wash.

The land will be used economically in some manner, so this isn't really a question of tree farm or no tree farm.

Some economical uses are more beneficial than others. All economic activity is not equal.

And I think we should heavily encourage mulching down used Christmas trees into compost, whether it is done for a personal garden or done for agriculture.

Definitely. I actually live in a town that has city-wide pickup for just such a purpose.

[ltfred]

Clearly Obama is a Radiohead fan.

[chad sexington]

www.politicususa.com/en/obama-christmas-tree-tax

Good Grief: Debunking The Myth Of The Obama Christmas Tree Tax
November 9, 2011

Fox News and right wing media have claimed that Obama is taxing Christmas trees, but according to the National Christmas Tree Association there is no tax, just an industry regulated fee used for marketing and research.

Here is Gretchen Carlson on Fox and Friends spreading the false Obama Christmas Tree Tax meme.

Carlson claimed that Obama was adding a Christmas tree tax for the holidays, and that the government was grinching fifteen cents out of your pocket on the sale of each tree.

This may come as a surprise, but none of Carlson’s claims are true. Media Matters did some digging and found that the Christmas tree industry is starting their own Checkoff program.

Here is how Christmas Trees Magazine described the industry supported program,

Under the authority of the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1995 the USDA oversees the formation of Checkoff organizations. The purpose of establishing a Checkoff is to promote the agricultural commodity with the intent of expanding markets and increasing demand. Checkoff programs also provide funding for research.

Examples of other agricultural commodity Checkoffs include the egg, beef, pork, mushroom, milk, and honey, etc. industries. We’re all familiar with the Dairy industry’s ad campaigns; “Milk Does a Body Good” and “Got Milk.” “Pork: the Other White Meat,” “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner” and “The Incredible Edible Egg” are recognizable slogans developed and funded by Checkoff programs. These four ‘big guns’ collect between $45 and $91.2 million in assessments annually.

Funding for promotions and research comes from within each industry. Fees could be assessed for example, in the Christmas tree industry, on a percentage of the selling price, per cut tree or per seedling basis. The amount of the assessment, who would participate, how the fees would be collected and how utilized, would be determined by the industry taskforce with the input of growers and attendees at the National Convention. Fresh imports (mainly from Canada) would be assessed at a comparable rate.

The live tree industry is advocating for this fee so that they can compete against imported cheap artificial trees, “Keeping the Real Tree industry viable in the face of imported fake trees is the challenge. A National marketing program with increased funding available for industry research is promising. If not through a Checkoff Program, then how?”

The industry is starting their own fund for research and marketing. The only role the government has is one of oversight. The fifteen cent fee goes to the private sector, not the government. Uncle Sam doesn’t see a dime. By smearing this fee, the right is attacking one of the traditional symbols of the holiday that they claim the left is out to destroy. Right wing media is willing to hurt one of their beloved private sector (holiday) job creators in order to attack Obama.

The right is apparently opposed to a private sector industry being allowed to set their own fees and prices so that they may compete with foreign imports. What is most interesting about this is that discussions about the Christmas tree checkoff program began in February 2008 during the presidency of George W. Bush.

In summary, Obama’s Christmas tree tax is not really a tax at all. The government doesn’t get any revenue from it. It is a private sector program like the “Got Milk?” campaign, which has its roots in the time period when Republican George W. Bush was president.

In pushing this false meme, right wing media may actually discourage Americans from buying live Christmas trees this year.

Merry Christmas, GOP. You blockheads!!