Last week, I, along with millions of others watched the lighting of the Rockefeller Christmas Tree in New York City. I was watching on TV thinking how fun and festive everything was. I watched the stars perform. I was irritated by Shakira’s stupid looking hair-do and laughed at how Jane Krakowski didn’t seem to have a bit of live hosting personality. But it’s tradition and it always gets me into the Christmas mood.
A few days later I was talking to Bob about it and he said something that I hadn’t ever thought of. He was mad because “they” just chopped down a very old, majestic tree to put on display for a few weeks. This tree is probably 80 years old or so and now it is dead.
That kinda made me sad.
So I started researching it. It seems The Rockefeller Christmas Tree has always been donated after the season.
Prior to 2007 most retired Rockefeller Center Christmas trees were ground into about three tons of mulch donated to the Boy Scouts of America for them to sell and use the proceeds to fund a variety of projects. Each year, however, the largest portion of the trunk was donated to the U.S. Olympic Equestrian Team headquarters in Gladstone, N.J., where it was used as an obstacle jump for the horses and their riders. (source www.scientificamerican.com)
In 2008 and again this year, the tree will be donated to Habitat for Humanity to build someone a home.
But does that make it okay to chop down such an old tree? In the current age of green living and being super aware of our dwindling natural resources, should we still be taking away from the Earth and our history for a Christmas Tree?
I don’t think so.
But I also don’t think that we should get all freaked out and “politically correct” and do away with the tradition all together.
My husband and I wonder why can’t an adult tree be transplanted into Rockefeller Center? There it can be cared for and continue to thrive. The same tree can be redecorated every year and celebrated as a National treasure. I don’t suggest that a seedling be planted either. Just an already beautiful, decently sized tree to be moved where it can continue to live and grow and delight future generations.
I don’t know. Just a crazy little idea that we had. Does it sound far-fetched? Tell me if I am being unrealistic here, or if I have the most brilliant idea ever.
I think it’s brilliant…
credit to USAToday.com/photo by Martyna Borkowski, AP
Definitely an awesome idea!
Why thank you! I thought so. lol
I think it would be difficult to transplant a tree that old–think of the MASSIVE root system that sucker would have!–but I think it could be done and it’s a good idea. I love live Christmas trees but we always put up an artificial one because I agree with you that it’s wasteful to cut down a beautiful tree, pay big bucks for it, and let it die in your house for a month before you throw it away. At least the Rockefeller tree is put to use afterwards but the tree that took 80 years to grow is dead none the less….
It doesn’t have to be an 80 year old tree that’s transplanted, just one that is about 7 feet tall, and then each generation could watch it grow taller. There could even be a contest, where the first person on such and such a day to guess the exact height of the tree on that day gets to help turn on the lights on the tree for the first time that year, or something like that.
I agree this is a much better idea than cutting down trees. Besides a smaller tree would need fewer lights too, and then less electricity would be used to light it. Granted each year more lighting would be required, but there would be savings along the way.