# Christmas and the environment



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Don't want to be the Grinch that stole Christmas, but when I heard about Christmas lights being illuminated all over the world at this time of the year, the affect on the environment came to mind.

So far as the lights are concerned, at least a good part of our power in Ontario and Canada comes from hydro, nuclear and wind. So, affect perhaps not as large as in some places.

How about all those trees that get cut down every Christmas? Maybe not so bad if they get replaced.

Wrapping paper that cannot be recycled is not good. Then we have all those cardboard and plastic boxes that items are packaged in. PLus the boxes that those come in, if ordered on-line.

Hundreds of thousands of toys and other gifts are exchanged. Many made from plastics. Often not used for long and end up in landfills and from what I read, even in oceans as microfibres.

A lot more cars on road - shopping and travelling to visit friends and relatives.

Food. We probably cook more, overeat and perhaps some of food is also wasted. 

Not suggesting we change much, but I do wonder just how much of an impact Christmas does have on the environment. Maybe some university Prof has a grant to study just this  ADDED: Did a search and here is one! https://www.businessleader.co.uk/the-dark-environmental-impacts-of-our-christmas-season/57161/


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

While I am all in favour of the environment and trying to avoid needless waste agent99, everything has both practical limits and sometimes just has to be accepted for totally impractical reasons.

You would indeed by the Grinch who stole Christmas if you were to suggest kids shouldn't get any Christmas presents etc. and that is really the only practical answer to the issue you are raising.

I would far rather people consider driving less, recycling, using less plastics etc. all year round but accept that for Christmas, they can let it slide a bit. If everyone were just a bit more concerned 364 days of the year, the 1 day a year of Christmas wouldn't matter.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Longtimeago said:


> You would indeed by the Grinch who stole Christmas if you were to suggest kids shouldn't get any Christmas presents etc. and that is really the only practical answer to the issue you are raising.


Maybe you didn't read my last paragraph? To find out what we could do to reduce environmental impact of Christmas, just do a Google Search. 
https://www.google.com/search?q=how...rome..69i57.8583j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

We only get to go around once then exit stage door left...LETS PARTY!!


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

_Bah! Humbug!...Humbug, I say!_


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Only a few responses, but...... Houston - We have a problem! :disturbed::concern::shame::tyrannosaurus: or something like that.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Christmas tree lights tradition originally comes from pagan rituals of lighting candles during winter festivals (the Solstice)... adding light to the darkest time of year, hoping for more light and the sunshine.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/...peeling-back-the-pagan-traditions-part-1.html



> Dr. Bruce Forbes, professor of religious studies at Sioux City, Iowa-based Morningside College and author of Christmas: A Candid History, said that many current Christmas rituals emerged during the difficult winters pagans often encountered. Candlelight conquered darkness, he explained, and evergreens were valued for remaining green in even the harshest weather. Singing, drinking and dancing, meanwhile, reduced isolation and kept people positive.
> 
> Christians took such traditions from other societies, he said, eliminating their pagan associations and replacing them with their own explanations.


I think it's a nice practice. Seeing lights on trees this time of year does cheer me up... it really is nice to have a bit of that light. The practice brings joy to many people (including non Christians I think).

Does it consume power? You bet it does. But even in my own apartment, I use extra lighting in the winter to make up for the lack of daylight. It's just a necessary thing in our cold climates. It is a worthwhile investment, and *not wasteful*. That's the key point for me; it's not a waste of energy.

We also heat our homes in the winter, to not suffer. Similarly, adding light to our surroundings, for both comfort and aesthetic joy is (IMO) necessary.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Ontario's electricity is almost 100% renewable green energy, so Christmas lights aren't going to create CO2 emissions. It is nice they light up the dark winter skies.

As to toys, packaging etc, perhaps it is time to slowly change from a consumer driven Christmas to one with a lower emphasis on gifts.

Maybe a "one gift per child" initiative would be helpful. Parents feel stress to give their kids a lot of gifts to make a "good Christmas" because other parents feel they have to do the same.

Maybe a well constructed educational program to lower child expectations would help provide an "off ramp" for parents to get off the treadmill.

But on the other hand, many retailers depend on Christmas sales to survive. In a consumer spending economy it is never a good idea to remove the consumer spending.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

agent99 said:


> Don't want to be the Grinch that stole Christmas, but when I heard about Christmas lights being illuminated all over the world at this time of the year, the affect on the environment came to mind.
> 
> So far as the lights are concerned, at least a good part of our power in Ontario and Canada comes from hydro, nuclear and wind. So, affect perhaps not as large as in some places.
> 
> ...




a thoughtful & appropriate message. There's far too much commercial/consumer hype in "Christmas."

maybe a middle-of-the-road approach. Some people have artificial xmas trees. Others love the fragrance of real pine/spruce but their municipalities pick up, chip & compost the trees after the holiday so their usefulness is not lost, although it does take energy to pick up chip etc.

some families restrict gifts to children only. We do that. Decorative reusable fabric bags for wrapping gifts. It's easier when only chlldren are the giftees because the adults can easily collect the bags (give a gift wrapped in red & green striped fabric bag to an adult & they'll likely throw the bag out).

my kids still have their childhood gift fabric bags, hand-sewn & monogrammed with their initials by a grandmother who's no longer alive. Actually she wasn't thinking of the environment, she just liked to put their initials on things she made for them like mittens & gloves.

yesterday when i opened my front door, for the first time this year i could smell the ice cold air. It's a particular kind of frozen montreal cold air fragrance that i never found in the US, europe, ottawa or out west. Welcome winter! next thing we'll be hearing boots squeaking through sub-sub-sub zero snow.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I went to an overnight trip to a hockey game at the Montreal Forum before they closed. It was in early February and we stayed in a historic old hotel near the Forum.

We darn near froze to death. It was so cold we called the front desk to get space heaters in our room. I was watching the OJ Simpson trial on television wrapped in blankets.

When we did venture out, I came to realize what real cold feels like. I agree Humble..........that Montreal cold is different.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> perhaps it is time to slowly change from a consumer driven Christmas to one with a lower emphasis on gifts ...
> 
> But on the other hand, many retailers depend on Christmas sales to survive. In a consumer spending economy it is never a good idea to remove the consumer spending.




me i think it's a grand idea to neutralize the emphasis on consumer spending!

there are community orgs in my hood that celebrate Don't-Buy-Anything days. Just for one day. You'd be surprised how much pain this causes (like, don't buy gas for the car)

also in my ville there's a student group called Extinction Rebellion that embraces active demonstrations. On black friday they were downtown at a major electronics store trying to persuade shoppers that they were buying devices with rapid built-in obsolescence destined soon for landfills even though they - the devices - contain toxic components ...

reportedly ER was not successful & black friday was super crazy busy. People openly fighting over the sale merchandise. Police were on hand to keep an eye on the crowds including ER but other than the individual brawls there were no mass incidents.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

sags said:


> Ontario's electricity is almost 100% renewable green energy,


That is not really true. We still have gas fired generating stations that produce a good part of our power when wind is low and during winter. And I don't know if you can call nuclear power generators green? They produce 50-60% of Ontario's power. In Germany, they are in process of shutting down all of their nuclear stations and now have a huge problem in how to dispose of the waste already generated. It will take decades for the waste to just cool down. Then it will be sealed and then take about a million years before it will be safe. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/30/europe/germany-nuclear-waste-grm-intl/index.html In Canada, it seems we only at present have interim storage: https://www.nwmo.ca/en/Canadas-Plan/Canadas-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/How-Is-It-Stored-Today

Most provinces have a high proportion of Hydro power and arguably most are more green than Ontario.


----------



## Longtimeago (Aug 8, 2018)

I see signs on a lot of front lawns in our area that say, 'Christmas is for Christ'. To which I say, that's nonsense. Christmas is for CHILDREN, not for Christ. Christmas for children in terms of getting gifts was around long before the Catholic church adopted all the local pagan winter solstice celebrations into their calendar by saying it was a time to celebrate the birth of Christ.

When I see these signs, what I see is someone too cheap to pay for some lights outside their house and too cheap to buy gifts for their kids. There are few things more miserable than a religious hypocrite who tells others what they should or should not do according to the word of God and at the same time regularly break one or more of the Ten Commandments themselves.

I do believe that Christmas is too consumer driven nowadays and that people should not go into credit card debt etc. to buy gifts at Christmas. I also believe we could do a lot worse than encourage the end of gift giving of usually unneeded and unused gifts between adults.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

agent99 said:


> That is not really true. We still have gas fired generating stations that produce a good part of our power when wind is low and during winter. And I don't know if you can call nuclear power generators green? They produce 50-60% of Ontario's power. In Germany, they are in process of shutting down all of their nuclear stations and now have a huge problem in how to dispose of the waste already generated. It will take decades for the waste to just cool down. Then it will be sealed and then take about a million years before it will be safe. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/30/europe/germany-nuclear-waste-grm-intl/index.html In Canada, it seems we only at present have interim storage: https://www.nwmo.ca/en/Canadas-Plan/Canadas-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/How-Is-It-Stored-Today
> 
> Most provinces have a high proportion of Hydro power and arguably most are more green than Ontario.


I would separate environmental from climate change issues. 

Nuclear power certainly has issues for severe, perhaps catastrophic environmental issues related both to operation and storage of spent fuel.

I am not sure how energy related to climate change should be defined by words. It seems a lot of words are used interchangeably.

Green, alternative energy, renewable, climate friendly......among the choices. Perhaps we need a simple broad accurate description.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Hope everybody is looking forward to a Green Christmas? 

BTW, this a chart of installed capacity in Ontario by type. https://live.gridwatch.ca/total-capacity.html 
(Click on bars top left for more interesting information about Ontario Power including current generation and usage.)


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I happen to live in an area where Christmas trees are grown. They are planted like any other crop on sandy land that will not grow anything else. They grow there for 7 years soaking up carbon, then are cut down and sold. Next year new trees are planted in the same field.

If there was no demand for Christmas trees none would be planted. Instead, a lot of carbon gets absorbed and as others have pointed out, eventually recycled into mulch or other useful products.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> and as others have pointed out, eventually recycled into mulch or other useful products.


Not too sure how much mulching helps. The trees take carbon out of the air as they grow. Once cut down and turned into mulch, most of that carbon is still there (some is left in roots). As the mulch decomposes, surely Carbon is then released? (albeit more slowly than burning). Unless oxygen can access the wood waste as it decomposes, it will release Methane instead of CO2. And Methane is a 5x worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Mulching can delay the release of GHGs, and can have beneficial side effects in agriculture and gardens. But what goes in still must come out eventually. In addition, on a life cycle basis, apparently 50% of a Christmas tree's total carbon emission is due to transportation through it's life cycle. 

Nevertheless, unless you buy a high quality artificial tree that will last for decades, a natural tree might still have less of an environmental impact than a plastic one. Studies say that break even may be keeping artificial tree for 5-10years depending on who you believe. 

BTW, we have an artificial tree. A very nice one, and we have had it for a long time! Maybe 25years. My wife re-assembled it yesterday. But, when we were young, going out with the kids to buy a real tree was a key part of the seasons activities.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

agent99 said:


> on a life cycle basis, apparently 50% of a Christmas tree's total carbon emission is due to transportation through it's life cycle.



but carbon emission from transportation characterizes every single organic product including each & every food product that is ever consumed anywhere on the planet. Compared to food transport, the amount of carbon dioxide released from christmas tree transportaton must be statistically insignificant.

one might as well fret over transport-induced carbon emission caused by importing orchids & other florists' flowers


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

You forgot to suck the fun out of Christmas parades. Now go back to living in your unheated hovel and eating cold tofu and weeds. Let the rest of us celebrate life for one day in the year.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Must be Happy Hour down East


----------



## fstamand (Mar 24, 2015)

What I find funny is those odd neighbors that keep their xmas lights on all year.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

agent99 said:


> That is not really true. We still have gas fired generating stations that produce a good part of our power when wind is low and during winter. And I don't know if you can call nuclear power generators green? They produce 50-60% of Ontario's power. In Germany, they are in process of shutting down all of their nuclear stations and now have a huge problem in how to dispose of the waste already generated. It will take decades for the waste to just cool down. Then it will be sealed and then take about a million years before it will be safe. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/30/europe/germany-nuclear-waste-grm-intl/index.html In Canada, it seems we only at present have interim storage: https://www.nwmo.ca/en/Canadas-Plan/Canadas-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/How-Is-It-Stored-Today
> 
> Most provinces have a high proportion of Hydro power and arguably most are more green than Ontario.


The answer to that is thorium power. Using the thorium process, depleted fuel rods, that have only used 3% of their energy, can be reused until 97% is used. At that point they are so depleted they only need to be stored under water for 10 years, and in safe keeping for 300 years. This may sound like a lot but it is better than 25000 years.

CANDU reactors can run on thorium. Just by recycling the nuclear waste we already have, we could have electricity for 100 years.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> CANDU reactors can run on thorium. Just by recycling the nuclear waste we already have, we could have electricity for 100 years.


So why is that not being done? It seems to make sense. 

This US based article says it is because uranium produces plutonium that is needed for bombs! 
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-arent-we-using-thorium-in-nuclear-reactors

It does also say that India and China are developing thorium based technology. 

In practical terms, I guess it is not that easy or cost effective to switch. It would take a big investment to replace existing generators that do work (for now)


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Thorium is the way to go about 8 grams will power a car for 100 years.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

agent99 said:


> So why is that not being done? It seems to make sense.
> 
> This US based article says it is because uranium produces plutonium that is needed for bombs!
> https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-arent-we-using-thorium-in-nuclear-reactors
> ...


They wouldn't need new generators or reactors. Our present CANDU reactors will work just as well with thorium and uranium or plutonium. Cost would be about the same as now. I have seen a report on the net, that was prepared in Canada in 1984 that said the process was practical and could be implemented in 15 years. They also said at that time we had enough uranium to last 30 or 40 years while if we used the thorium process we had enough for 1000 years.

Of course a new reactor designed to use thorium would be more efficient. The thorium process was proven to work as far back as the 1940s but was never developed because they wanted breeder reactors to make material for atom bombs. In other words never mind the one that makes safe clean cheap energy, give us the one that explodes.

If you do a web search they are working on this process around the world. Everyplace but Canada, or so it seems.


----------

