Letter: Rethink the artificial tree argument
To the editor:
Re: Letter published in Nov. 29 Capital News (Tree Slaughter in the Name of the Lord has Got to Stop).
First, the author of this letter, John B. Collinson, doesn’t seem to like the Willow Park Church Living Nativity Scene, calling it “self-aggrandizement of the church and its flock.”
Certainly Mr. Collinson is entitled to his opinion, but he’s not clear why it bugs him so much.
Second, Mr. Collinson objects to the use of natural trees for this event. He claims that it is “immoral” to cut down living trees to be used in this manner.
Why is it immoral to use trees in this manner and not, say, for the construction of houses? Mr. Collinson doesn’t say.
Third, Mr. Collinson sounds quite proud that he personally uses artificial rather than natural trees to celebrate Christmas. I would suggest that he truly investigate the environmental impact of artificial trees versus natural trees, he would find out that artificial trees have a far bigger negative impact on the environment than do natural trees.
Growing and harvesting natural trees is an excellent way to take carbon out of the atmosphere (assuming the trees are not burned when Christmas is over).
Contrast that with the wide variety of petroleum based products and chemicals that go into the production and transportation of artificial trees (not to mention the eventual long-term disposal problem) and you will find that natural trees should be the choice of anyone who wishes to minimize his/her environmental impact.
Lloyd Vinish, Kelowna