"Oh Tannenbaum"

Given the merry holiday atmosphere that currently surrounds Austin, I couldn’t help but wonder about my favorite holiday tradition – the Christmas tree – and its origins and roots in the U.S.

The Christmas tree tradition was first introduced to Canada in 1781 by German soldiers who protected Quebec against American attacks. Later in 1848, the London news published a picture of the British Royal Family’s Christmas tree in Windsor Castle, which was then copied by Americans and published in Godey’s Lady’s Book (a magazine published in Philadelphia). The image was republished many times in the 1860’s and 1870’s, making it very popular to put up a Christmas tree in North America. While many German immigrants claim to be the first to introduce this tradition to Americans, Godey’s Lady’s Book is known to be the most important channel, responsible for spreading it throughout the country (K. Marling).  

All Christmas trees were initially freshly cut from alpine forests, but during the 19^th century, as an answer to continued deforestation, Germans created the first artificial trees. They were originally made out of green painted feathers, with berries in their tips that acted as candleholders; later, other materials like aluminum and brush bristles were used to create trees. The most recent artificial trees are made out of PVC plastic (recycled from used packaging materials).

Nowadays, there are some people who enjoy having a natural tree in their home (for different reasons such as: its incredible, mesmerizing scent; the sake of tradition and culture; the beautiful look of the evergreen branches; etc.), others, prefer to invest in an artificial, sometimes pre-lit tree, maybe to avoid having to buy a natural one every single year. Nevertheless, recent debates about how the cutting of natural trees affects the environment have made a lot of people reflect and consider switching to artificial.

The truth is, when it comes to this matter, there are two points of view (both very valid and equally important) from which to argue. First, the American Christmas Tree Association (a non-profit organization that represents those involved in the artificial Christmas tree industry) claims that the plastic of which artificial trees are made has excellent recyclable properties.

On the other hand, natural tree growers contend artificial trees are more environmentally harmful than natural ones. Natural trees are cultivated in crops, harvested, and then replanted in rotation after cutting. They provide a suitable habitat for wildlife; however, concerns have been raised about these crops not being a healthy habitat because of the pesticides used to grow trees. Natural trees can also be recycled as mulch, or used to prevent erosion. “Living” trees or potted trees can also be rented from local growers, and returned after the holidays, or purchased and then replanted by the owner. Finally, lead has often been used as a stabilizer to make artificial trees, which after a period of approximately nine years can reach dangerous contamination levels. Nevertheless, in the recent years tin (which is not as dangerous) has been used as a stabilizer.

From my point of view, both options are reasonable. One must be cautious and responsible when purchasing or renting a tree; if artificial, then we must make sure tin has been used as a stabilizer to build it and make sure it is properly recycled if we want to dispose of it. If natural, the most responsible choice would be renting, especially if you don’t have a backyard with proper weather conditions in which to replant your tree; if not, you may buy it and then make sure you dispose of it in a proper tree recycling center where it can be used for making mulch or for other means.  

Here are some pictures of my Christmas tree from last year in Venezuela. It was a natural Fraser Fir tree we purchased from a local vendor.

This year’s budget is really tight! So I think it will be my first Christmas without a natural tree to greet me good morning on every cold December day. However, Central Market carries some very beautiful mini rosemary trees that smell delicious! I think we will give them a try…

DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS

Reference Links:

Biello, David (2008, December 4). I'm Dreaming of a Green Christmas (Tree). Scientific American. Retrieved November 24, 2014 from http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/im-dreaming-of-a-green-christmas-tr-08-12-05/

Facts on PVC Used in Artificial Christmas Trees. American Christmas Tree Association. Retrieved November 24, 2014 from http://www.christmastreeassociation.org/Article%20Pages/facts-about-pvc

Levin, R.; Brown, M. J.; Kashtock, M. E. et al. (2008, May 19). Lead Exposures in U.S. Children, 2008: Implications for Prevention. Environmental Health Perspectives. Retrieved November 24, 2014 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2569084/

Maples, Gareth. (2008, June 25). The History of Christmas – A Gift to All. Retrieved November 24, 2014 from http://www.thehistoryof.net/the-history-of-christmas.html

Marling, Karal Ann. Merry Christmas! Celebrating America's Greatest Holiday. Harvard University Press, 2000: 4.

E.P.A vs Texas?

Since the 1970’s, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has helped protect the environment by enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.  It conducts research, assessment and education in environmental matter. In conference with local governments, the EPA delegates the enforcement and monitoring of all regulations.   

Texas, which is rich in natural resources like oil and gas, has had a hard time complying with EPA’s regulations, which demand major modifications to existent energy generating facilities that function by burning fossil fuels like oil or coal.

Marco Castañeda, a Peruvian environmental lawyer currently acquiring a Masters Degree at the University of Texas, was eager to comment on this particular matter, for he believes protecting the environment while maintaining Texas’ thriving economy is a controversial issue. Mr. Castañeda also believes expecting Texas will comply with E.P.A’s regulations is somehow unrealistic; he finds some of these regulations could threaten the establishment of traveling companies from the state of California.

“I think that E.P.A is realistic enough to understand that they have enough challenge trying to develop environmental policies in Texas. That’s something that they are really struggling with, that there are a couple of environmental regulations that should be enforced in every state in the next two years, related to gas emissions and they are struggling to get Texas to comply with these regulations. That’s their main goal, I think that’s a realistic goal, just trying to get Texas to comply with federal regulation, but I don’t think that they can go further, like try to make that Texas develop a more strict environmental regulation.” (M. Castañeda)

            

According to Mr. Castañeda Texas is merely going to comply with these regulations, in other words, as long as the EPA stops bothering them with new standards, they will comply to get them off their backs and let them make money out of non renewable energy plants. For example, new regulations for the emission of greenhouse gasses were recently issued; in regard with this matter, these were Mr. Castañeda’s comments:

“Texas probably wont adapt its industries to the E.P.A regulations regarding the emission of greenhouse gasses, however, the regulations are flexible and they permit that, in order to fulfill the goals, you can purchase the pollution rights from other states, or you can work with other states to achieve the environmental goal together. Texas will probably try to pair up with another state that doesn’t have enough pollution so they may try to use this clean state to fulfill its environmental goals…”

          

On the other hand, there are other environmental protection measures that do not involve the burning of fossil fuels. For example, generating renewable energy through natural resources like the sun; in spite of its incredible solar potential Texas still generates more energy from dangerous, polluting sources. The fact is, incredibly, “Texas is the biggest wind energy state in the U.S, it generates more energy based in wind than any other state of the union, and this energy is employed in their state’s electric rate.” (Castañeda). So, Texas is in fact generating clean, environment-safe, renewable energy, maybe not solar, but they are actually making an effort in other ways.

            

Also, according to my previous post on recycling and reusable materials, Texas -or Austin at least- is making an effort in preserving the environment by developing clever and easy recycling measures; projects like “The Bag Ban” and “Rock and Recycle” are proof of this city’s efforts regarding the environment.    

            

So, is Texas really cooperating? Mr. Castañeda believes, since oil and coal are very valuable resources, thinking Texas is going to change the entire energy matrix based in environmental protection criteria is something that is not realistic. Nevertheless, he believes they are doing the best they can with the resources they have in hand (they are protecting the environment in other ways).

Also, he thinks that what should change in order to get Texas to cooperate more, is the implementation of additional environmental protection criteria of besides the federal regulation (which applies to every state in the union, and it ensures environmental protection in every state). In tune with the current ambiance circulating the city of Austin due to upcoming elections, I asked Ms. Castañeda what he would do if elected Governor of Texas, and these were his thoughts on the subject:

“Ok. Well, if I were governor of Texas, I would try to develop environmental development plans; plans to fulfill the conservation of species and also the development of industries. This is not something new in Texas, the environmental regulation, the endangered species act, in fact, considers the development of plans, of environmental plans when there is going to be a direct or indirect harm to one species listed as an endangered species. It is something that has already happened in Texas; in the Austin area the Cannyonland’s environmental plan has accomplished the development of western Austin, the Travis County, and also has assured the protection of endangered species. I think that this is a good method; the main problem with these plans is the funding of them, because most of the land in Texas is private land, so, if you have to do these plans you have to at least secure an area for the development of the species listed as endangered species, and you would need to buy this land from the owner, so I think that this is a good way to do it, you could use the money that Texas has because of the industrial development and the recent boom in oil and gas industry.”

Non-utopic, his ideas are realistic and simple. They are easy to achieve because Texas has the required resources and the capacity to do so. I believe that, if polished and systematized, these plans could be turned into actions that would help protect the environment and its species while maintaining an active economical activity in the field of energy and industrial plants.

DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS