One more reason to go with a live tree, other than the fact that it makes the house smell like Christmas, is carbon fixing. If you live in a community like mine in So. Cal. where the local waste management turns your real tree into mulch at the end of the holiday you are removing green house gasses from the environment and putting the carbon into the ground.

The trees convert CO2 into wood thus removing it from the atmosphere. Since these trees are farmed and therefore planted for maximum growth, not crowded, provided optimal growing conditions, ect. One would expect plantation-raised trees to remove greenhouse gasses faster than natural forest grown trees.

And they make my house smell like Christmas.

Almost right, except that the mulch doesn't put carbon "into the ground". As the mulch decays, it emits carbon dioxide as well as methane and other gases. Live Christmas trees are carbon neutral: they hold carbon for a while, then release it again.

OK

But in the same way that fossil fuel, if the theory that it is the result of geologic stress on encapsulated biomass, is carbon neutral over time. Just a really loooong time. When I say into the ground I wasn't speaking about into the silica sand or clay that composes a portion f any soil but as the organic component of soil and although over time it would indeed return that carbon into the air assuming 100% oxidization, which once buried, may or may not be the case. I would be willing to bet that over the next hundred years, at least, this would still be a carbon negative transaction.

Looking forward to your take on this.

Sorry, I don't have much more "take" than I already posted. I don't know the numbers.

Generally, though, rotting biomass puts out some amount of CO2 and methane.

OK, and what about the facts that buying live supports tree farming, and farming in general (since many tree farmers also produce other crops or livetsock, or work in other aspects of local timber resource management), which a.) promotes the growth of CO2 absorbing trees, b.) keeps land valuable for agricultural use and less susceptible to development pressures, c.) helps in a general sense to support small-scale family agricultural operations and related industries- which down the line impacts everything from local economies, to lessening our reliance on foreign sources of food, and d.) if you're a smart consumer you can do some research or ask questions to ensure that your live tree comes from an eco-friendly source.

Also, if you have cut-your-own places nearby, it can be a great opportunity for some good clean family fun, AND a perfect opportunity to instill in your kids some respect for the earth, our environment, and the important role your local agriultural producers play in everything from your local economy to food safety to the prevention of suburban sprawl.

It's a no-brainer.

mulching exposes the stored carbon of the live tree now dead to bacteria which "fart" the stored carbon in the form of CO2 as they break down the mulch, so there is no carbon going into the ground.

With regards to the plantation analogy, you are correct, densely placed trees, which are watered and fertilized do remove more carbon than the forest growth, but since the lifespan of these trees are very short, the amount of stored carbon negligable as the stored carbon is readily returned to the atmosphere via biological decay. But since we are talking about negligible amounts, one way to look at it is the trees are raise where carbon is in equalibrium with the system (out in the country where there are few CO2 sources) but decays in areas where carbon is out of equalibrium with the system (in urban environments where there is an excess of CO2).

KA

but it make you feel better, so that's a plus.

"carbon into the ground." Only temporary. Rotting is like steel that rusts.

Decomposing vegetation - trees - is a continuous cycle. Carbon will release and form CO2. Burning wood - structure fire - fireplace heating releases this same co2 only faster. The more natural dead trees, the higher the co2 potential. The best sequestering of carbon is done by the fastest growing plants. A well managed Xmas tree farm will store more carbon than in nature. Productivity stays on-shore. Plastic Xmas trees may over all create less carbon footprint than natural trees. Off-shore plastic trees do not have anywhere near the NEPA controls. But if done correctly utilize recycled plastic (any old computers here) over and over. Plastic trees do not need virgin plastic. If the owner of the plastic tree takes care of their investment, will easily have a less carbon footprint than those farm trees. Natural trees are a one time shot and whether they are ground up or used as fish-spawning-hatching nurseries, the carbon eventually is released back to the air. Trees need CO2. More co2, faster the growth. Old trees sequester minimal carbon. Annual tree girth increase is the key measurement. The example is a 3-some old growth Coastal Redwood in CA. Left in place because of bad lean/dangerous falling into a building complex. Two of these trees were removed(interesting method) and within 7 years the lone surviving oldgrowth increased girth by 5 ft. This tree is well over 200 tall. In the 3-some/nature there was minimal girth growth.

Another side concern is the 40-50 yr old inconclusive connection (medical research) with low CO2 levels-atmospher and respiratory difficulty increases - like asma etc. This is inconclusively suggested in all mammals. I wonder why this can not be grant funded?

The largest North American Carbon sink sequestering place is the alluvian Mississippi of the Gulf.

But all in all, the smell of the tree is worth something. There are people that get sick from the smell.