The Brief

It's time to discuss one of the perennial debates of the holiday season: Which are more eco-friendly, real trees or their fake counterparts?

If you ask Tim O'Connor, executive director of the National Christmas Tree Association, the answer is obvious.

"I think it's just a no-brainer that real Christmas trees are far superior for the environment," he said. "Let's just start with a product of nature versus a product that's made from oil."

Of course, O'Connor's organization represents Christmas tree farmers. Here's what studies and environmentalists say.

The studies

The most recent U.S. analysis of the issue is from 2018, when a life cycle assessment — measuring the environmental impact of real and fake trees over the course of production to disposal — was published. (It's worth noting that the study was done by a consulting firm contracted by the American Christmas Tree Association, which represents the artificial-tree industry.)

The analysis took into account things like the netting around real Christmas trees and the water used to keep them alive in homes, versus the plastic packaging tape used on fake-tree boxes and transportation from manufacturers in China.

It concluded that artificial trees have a more favorable effect on the environment if reused for at least five years.

It's worth noting, though, that with all these variables, the study says that transportation accounts for around 15% of total global warming potential for artificial Christmas trees and 10% to 12% for real ones. So if that tree farm or big-box store is a long drive away, it can really sway things.

"Neither a farm-grown tree or a faux tree has a superlarge environmental impact compared to some daily activities like commuting a long way in a gas-powered car," said Mac Harman, the CEO of Balsam Hill, which makes high-end fake trees and offers an eco-friendly line of trees made from recycled plastics and plant-based plastic. "One long commute could be about the impact of having a Christmas tree for a year."

Environmentalists, meanwhile, suggest studies shouldn't be the only evidence consumers take into account.

"Studies can really vary on anything depending on who's funding the study, what parameters they're looking at, which elements are the most important, or are they just looking at carbon impacts? Are they looking at other resource impacts? Are they considering extraction? Are they considering disposal?" said Darby Hoover of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

A man and child look at artificial Christmas trees on display at a Home Depot in Miami in 2021.

(

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

)

An environmentalist's take

Several environmental groups have waded into the debate, and for many of them, real trees are the winner.

"For me, it's not just carbon," said Hoover. "One of the things about the artificial trees is that they're made of plastic almost entirely. And the by-far-most-common polymer used to make artificial trees is PVC, polyvinyl chloride, which is a particularly toxic form of plastic that's toxic in production, use and disposal."

It's worth noting the endgame for both options: If real trees end up in a landfill and don't break down, they're still storing all the carbon they absorbed in life. And if they're mulched, they're being reused for greener purposes. Most artificial trees aren't recyclable.

"If [people] want to do what's better for the environment, if they want to support a family farmer, if they want to have the kind of Christmas experience for their family that is authentic, that includes something from nature rather than something from plastic, it's a pretty simple decision to have a real Christmas tree," O'Connor of the real-Christmas-tree association said.

How to be tree-mendously green for Christmas

Want to take it a step further? Let's go back to the tree's roots — as in letting the tree keep its actual roots.

The official White House Christmas tree, a 20-foot Fraser fir, is seen at Cartner's Christmas Tree Farm in Newland, N.C., on Nov. 13.

(

Erik Verduzco

/

AP

)

"I think the best option is using a plant that's already in your life or that you want to purchase and have stay in your life," said Hoover. "So rather than buying a plant that's going to be cut down, why not repurpose a tree that's already on your property or a really fancy potted plant that's already in your home?"

And if your wilted snake plant isn't Christmassy enough for you, there's another option. There are companies that allow you to rent a live Christmas tree that returns to the nursery when the holidays are over.

And if you already have a fake tree, keep using it. Harman of Balsam Hill says he knows people who still have trees from his company's early days nearly two decades ago.

"It doesn't make business any easier for us selling more trees when they last so long, but it's certainly good for the environment," he said.

News that Warner Bros. Discovery is up for sale has Hollywood buzzing. The legendary film studio, which has grown to include streaming services and cable channels, is currently accepting non-binding bids until Thursday. According to company spokesperson Robert Gibbs, they expect to have a decision about the sale by Christmas.

It's become something of a Hollywood parlor game to guess who will ultimately take over the business, which was founded in 1923 by four brothers: Harry, Albert, Sam and Jack Warner. They owned a movie theater in Pennsylvania before coming to Hollywood to make movies.

Warner Brothers Pictures found one of its first silent picture stars in a German shepherd named Rin Tin Tin. By 1927, the studio made history with its feature-length "talkie" picture: The Jazz Singer, starring Al Jolson.

Over the years, Warner Brothers has made or distributed countless iconic films including: Casablanca, The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon in the 1940's. The list goes on, with titles like A Clockwork Orange, Goodfellas, Barbie, as well as Bugs Bunny and all the Looney Tunes cartoons.

Warners Brothers has had multiple owners over the decades. Three years ago, Warner Media, as it was called, merged with Discovery. And in June, the company announced it would split in two, with film, TV and streaming studios in one camp, and in the other, mostly legacy cable channels, including CNN.

The planned split has not yet happened, and a new buyer might get the entirety of Warner Bros. Discovery and its film and TV libraries.

As the film industry continues to consolidate, there's speculation that Warner Brothers' old rival Paramount could take over. Having just merged as Paramount Skydance, CEO David Ellison has already made several overtures.

The idea of streaming giant Netflix buying the company has raised antitrust concerns on Capitol Hill. In an earnings call last month, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos told investors, "We've been very clear in the past that we have no interest in owning legacy media networks. There is no change there."

Industry watchers suggest other suitors could be Comcast, Amazon, or an investor who's not already in the entertainment business.

Regardless of whoever does end up buying the company, theater owners say they hope making movies for cinemas will be a priority.

"As long as we have more movies," says Daniel Loria, senior vice president at The Boxoffice Company, which analyzes data from studios and theaters. "That doesn't mean the same amount, doesn't mean less, but more movies. I think you're going to find folks in the movie theater industry support any business decision that gets us there."

Loria recalls that after Disney purchased Fox and Fox Searchlight, their combined studios significantly reduced the number of films they released in the theaters. Crunching the numbers, Loria says in 2016, a year before the merger announcement, Disney and Fox released a total of 38 theatrical films. This year, the consolidated studios released 18.

That's a problem for theater owners who've been struggling to bring audiences back to cinemas after the COVID-19 pandemic shut them down; they're competing with movie-watching on TVs, computers and phones.

Some theater owners and cinephiles also fear studio conglomerates will only greenlight a few big-budget blockbusters, leaving the lower budget indies behind.

"The concern is you're going to see less of that risk taking, less of that experimentation and less of that embracing new directors, new filmmakers in the future," says Max Friend, the CEO of Filmbot, the ticketing platform for independent cinemas in the U.S. "It's really important that there are studios that are funding and supporting, cultivating that kind of work."

He points out that this year, Warner Brothers made a string of critical hits, including Ryan Coogler's Sinners, the horror film Weapons and Paul Thomas Anderson's One Battle After Another.

Friend wonders if the next owner will take similar risks with future original, creative films.

Warner Bros. Discovery is a financial supporter of NPR.

Copyright 2025 NPR

A downtown hearing kicked off Wednesday, during which a federal judge will consider holding the city of Los Angeles in contempt of court. The hearing is the latest step in a long-running legal saga regarding the city's response to the region’s homelessness crisis.

The hearing was ordered by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, who has been overseeing a settlement in a lawsuit brought against the city by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a group of downtown business and property owners. L.A. Alliance sued the city, and county, in 2020 for failing to adequately address homelessness.

Several witnesses are expected to testify during the contempt-of-court hearing, including Gita O’Neill, the new head of the region’s top homeless services agency, and Matt Szabo, the L.A. city administrative officer.

L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger watched at least part of Wednesday’s hearing in the courtroom.

Why now?

Carter said in court documents that he’s concerned “the city has demonstrated a continuous pattern of delay” in meeting its obligations under court orders. During a hearing last week, the judge pointed to several delays, including recently reported issues related to data and interviewing city employees.

The judge noted that similar concerns have come up at previous hearings. Carter told attorneys for the city in March 2024 that he “indicated to the mayor that I’ve already reached the decision that the plaintiffs were misled” and “this is bad faith,” according to court transcripts.

The judge said in a Nov. 14 order that he’s concerned the “delay continues to this day.”

The contempt hearing is expected to cover whether the city has complied with court orders and provided regular updates to the court under the settlement agreement.

Reducing delays

Attorneys for the city have pushed back against the hearing, filing objections with the judge and making an unsuccessful emergency request with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to block it from happening.

City authorities also asked the appeals court to press pause on the judge’s order to appoint a monitor in the case to make sure the city stays on track with the settlement. The city argued that Carter handed the monitor “a blank check to interfere with the democratic process,” according to court documents.

The appeals court partly denied the city’s request. It allowed Wednesday’s hearing to move forward, but it agreed to pause the appointment of Daniel Garrie as monitor.

In light of that response, attorneys for the city have argued that looking at the city’s cooperation with Garrie “would be inappropriate” during the hearing and that L.A. “cannot be held in contempt for either the substance or the manner of its compliance with the order,” according to court documents.

Previous hearings related to the settlement have elicited tense questioning of witnesses and harsh words from the judge, who has been vocal about reducing delays and moving the case forward.

In an opening statement Wednesday, Theane Evangelis — one of the attorneys representing the city — urged the judge to “turn down the heat” on the closely watched case. Evangelis said the “city is constantly under fire” in court while L.A. has made “enormous strides” in getting people off the streets.

Elizabeth Mitchell, lead attorney for L.A. Alliance, said the city treats transparency as a burden.

She said Wednesday that the “city still fights oversight harder than it fights homelessness” and that the court should address L.A. 's “consistent” delays throughout the case.

What’s next?

The hearing will resume Dec. 2, when more witnesses can appear in person.

City authorities told the court they believed a one-day hearing wouldn't be enough time to go over all the evidence.

If the judge does find the city of L.A. in contempt of court and that it "isn't doing what it promised to do," the consequences could range from nothing all the way up to serious sanctions, according to Matthew Umhofer, an attorney for L.A. Alliance.

Umhofer told LAist after the hearing that sanctions could include the court ordering more intensive monitoring of the city’s performance, imposing new requirements on the city, monetary penalties or possibly a receivership.

Carter previously stopped short of seizing control of the city’s hundreds of millions of dollars in homelessness spending and handing it to a court-appointed receiver, deciding against that option in a June ruling.

L.A. Alliance is considering asking for an extension to the settlement agreement, Umhofer said.

“The city has gotten away with not complying for a very long time,” he said. “So extending the agreement can be among the things that we might ask for ... given the pattern of delay and obstruction."

Evangelis and Bradley Hamburger, another attorney representing the city, declined LAist’s request for comment after the hearing.