Ghosts for now, trees soon

So, tomorrow is November 1. We're officially 55 days away from Christmas. Some interesting things came up this week and I wanted to post them before going trick or treating with my nieces tonight.

First, the Trees for Troops program just received a major award for community projects which Advance America from American Society of Association Executives at their annual convention. They produced a short video outlining the program. We posted it on our You Tube page...please go have a look http://www.youtube.com/RealTrees .

This tidbit made me sad.....NOT! Apparently fake tree factories in China are facing fewer orders and tough financial times. AWWWWWW. This article at Report on Business dot com http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081023.wibchina24/GIStory/
included this quote:
"U.S. clients are asking for cheaper Christmas trees this year, he said. But his company is squeezed between its falling revenue and rising costs, slashing its profit to 10 to 15 per cent from more than 20 per cent in the past. Its work force has fallen 15 per cent and overtime is sharply down."

In a related topic, I had several inquiries this week from business reporters asking about prices of trees and effect of economy on purchases of the real thing, farm-grown fresh Christmas trees. Here's what I tell them: people in the business on the retail lot end will say that economy doesn't really have that much impact on tree purchases because people will not sacrifice such an important tradition no matter how tight their budget may be. We also know that no matter what the state of the economy, tree prices always vary by a great deal based on many, many factors. No matter what, you can probably go just about anywhere in the U.S. and find farm-grown trees ranging from $15 up to $200. I always tell people, if price is your #1 determining factor, then shop around.

If you see any news reports claiming that "trees will cost $_____ this year...blah blah" just ignore them. Nobody can predict what price tags will be on trees.

And finally, I caught this silly fake tree guy from some company called Christmas Central dot com paying for "news" releases this week, then posting the same drivel at bloggeron dot net. I say drivel very dirisively because it is filled with nothing but lies and misinformation. This is nothing new of course, fake tree people have been lying about their product and farm-grown trees for years in order to get people to buy their stuff.

Next week, we'll start doing more regular posts. And we'll start with some new data from the National Fire Protection Association's report on home fires involving Christmas trees.

For now, Happy Halloween!

Real Trees vs. Fake Trees: Round 2

Almost time! Thanksgiving is tomorrow and the tree season is upon us.

We're getting some good e-mail questions and feedback from site visitors, and I'll start posting some of those on Friday. I just wanted to rant a little more about how fake tree people try to misdirect and confuse consumers.

Check out this advertisement:

"In addition to saving our forests ..." Sometimes people don't believe me when I tell them that fake tree sellers purposely lie to consumers. Here's proof. Real Christmas Trees don't come from forests. They're grown on farms, planted by farmers.

Or take this article by someone named Zea Gevert.

This one is so full of holes, mis-truths and opinions stated as fact, it's hard to know where to start.

"An artificial Christmas tree offers many benefits and advantages when compared to a fresh Christmas tree. Some of the advantages are self-evident: owning an artificial tree, easily stored in the house..." Ummm, no, not for many people. For example, I live in a renovated old row house in a neighborhood where most buildings are 150+ years old. Storage space is at a premium. I'm lucky to have space to store my tree stand for my real tree.

"Artificial Christmas trees can last more than a decade if well-maintained and stored appropriately. So the initial investment pays off in that regard..." Hey, that's great math. So you spend $400 on a decent fake tree then use it for 10 years. That's $40 per year average. That's the same amount people spend on average on a real tree. Errr, how exactly does that pay off?

"...artificial trees are infinitely safer than fresh trees; one worries much less about fire safety or electrical problems with an artificial tree..." Here's an example of an opinion stated as fact. The National Fire Protection Association reports only home fires where the first item ignited was a "Christmas tree" but do NOT distinguish between real ones and fake ones. If you don't think fake trees catch on fire, you're wrong. They're plastic - they do. And those words "flame retardant" on boxes ... just words as there is no testing lab or certifying body verifying that.

"And those who suffer from allergies can enjoy a handsome artificial Christmas tree..." Here's an example of a flat-out lie. According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, people with sensitive allergies should be equally concerned with fake trees as real trees.

"This kind of flexibility and freedom of choice just isn't available with a natural Christmas tree. With a natural Christmas tree, the shopper's choices are severely limited ..." Another mistruth. Most people don't know that you can get more than 35 different species of farm-grown trees in the U.S. And the real irony is, that EACH AND EVERY TREE IS UNIQUE in its own way. You have WAY MORE choices in sizes, colors, types, shapes, needles, branches and overall appearance with a natural tree.

Oh well. We should try to stay positive and enjoy the season, but it is frustrating sometimes when I read some of the garbage put out by the fake tree people.

BTW - did you know that this week, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) called for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to start testing imported artificial trees for lead?

Nice. Well, Happy Thanksgiving and happy tree hunting if you're going this weekend to get it. Don't forget to submit a video in the YouTube contest. The entries have started being posted. There was a hilarious one posted today.

Real Tree vs. Fake Tree: Round 1

Ok, this week I'll get some ranting out of the way so we can concentrate on positive things the closer we get to the Christmas season.

The rant subject is the "debate" over whether a fake tree is a better eco-choice than a Real Tree. Quite frankly, it befuddles me that there is still a debate at all and that there are consumers out there who still think a manufactured product is better for the environment than a natural product. But, alas, there are.

Part of the problem is the misleading, and sometimes outright false, information put out there. Here's an example: this Sears ad for a fake, plastic tree describes it as a "Just Cut Balsam." What?!? It's not a balsam, and it wasn't just cut. It was manufactured in a factory somewhere, most likely China, then shipped here. You can post a comment to Sears about this silly, deceptive product description right here.

Here's another example: in the November/December issue of Mother Jones magazine, there's a chart comparing real trees and fake trees. The author is Celia Perry. Under the real tree column, in a category called "Dirty Business" it says "produce oxygen, but require tons of pesticides and herbicides." Now that second part is a totally false statement. They do indeed produce oxygen, as all plants do, but do NOT require tons of pesticides. No source is cited, and phone calls to Ms. Perry went unreturned. Mother Jones' tagline says "Smart, Fearless Journalism" .... really? Is that why writeds jsut make stuff up?

I was talking with a reporter last week who said a retro aluminum tree had these words on its packaging: "Better for the environment because no tree has to be cut down." Of course, it comes in a cardboard box ... the hypocrisy is astounding.

Here's the best example - an article from the Hays Daily News in Hays, Kansas. In it, a fake tree seller is touting the lower fuel consumption required to transport fake trees from Asia if you calculate that over 15 years of using the same tree. Uh, relaly? That doesn't take into account the fuel required to ship raw materials such as plastic and metal to the factory in the first place. Nor does it take into account the energy consumed by the factory itself. Nor does it take into account the fuel consumed to distribute the product from shipping ports to retail outlets throughout the United States. Recently a Christmas Tree farmer calculated fuel use to grow his trees. This is a farm in the Deep South, where mowing is probably required more than other places. He uses 600 gallons of fuel per year (both diesel and gasoline) to grow 14,000 trees. That equates to 5.5 ounces of fuel per tree per year. How many ounces of petroleum is used to make the plastic needles of one fake tree?

Plastic is a product we all sue, but many believe will need to be replaced soon. A recent article in Spirit Magazine said the U.S. uses 2 million barrels of oil every day to make plastic. That represents about 10% of the nation's total consumption. I found that interesting.

Well, to combat some of the misleading, and sometimes outright false, information that consumers are exposed to, we put together a simple comparison chart. You can access it from the front page of our Web site. I'm confident that sooner, rather than later, consumers will know the truth and know that the eco-friendly choice in Christmas Trees is a renewable, recyclable Real Tree grown on a farm.