The global system is largely unable to protect ecosystems far from the world's centers of political, economic, and financial power: those in countries where, even during the colonial era, “extractive” institutions were established, to the detriment of local resources. But there are signs of change to be supported.
by Benedetto Gui
published in Città Nuova on January 2, 2026
These days we are cheered by millions of green trees sparkling with garlands and pendants, but - tell me I'm a bit obsessed - I can't help wondering what the effects are on the environment, the patient ‘landlord’ who welcomes us and with whom we behave like very rude guests. First thought: CO2 emissions. Producing an artificial tree would cause about 20 kg, according to a study by the University of Florence, compared to just over half a kilo for a natural one. Then there is transportation, which is generally much longer for artificial trees (most of the world's production is in the Chinese city of Yiwu), which could cause another 20 kg of emissions. If the natural tree is properly disposed of as organic material, the above-mentioned study argues that, in order to win the comparison, the artificial tree would have to remain in use for many years.
Concern about emissions is certainly commendable, but unfortunately, one of our cars emits an average of 40 kg of CO2 in a week. In short, the stakes here are not very high. However, we can also ask ourselves another question: if these are real trees, how much do forests suffer? Here too, there does not seem to be too much to worry about, if we think about how things work in Italy or in the countries from which part of our needs originate. Some saplings are obtained by thinning out overly dense forests; some are the tops of trees destined for the timber industry; others – the majority – are specially grown in nurseries. There is public control that works reasonably well and in some cases there is also community control (our Alps are home to centuries-old examples of sustainable forest management by valley communities). Some people also point out that this creates jobs in areas at risk of depopulation.
Intrigued, I went to look for news about other countries.
A particularly alarming case is that of Guatemala, home to a particularly prized species of fir, abies guatemalensis, which was once widespread but is now at risk of extinction. The cause is the illegal cutting of tall trees for timber, but also of young plants to be sold in the Christmas tree market in the country's cities, and even of branches, which are easier to hide under other goods, which are then used to make ‘semi-natural’ trees.
Unfortunately, it is certainly not new that in low-income countries with weak public institutions, preserving local ecosystems is particularly difficult, due to insufficient measures to combat illegality and also because of poverty, which drives people to take advantage of any possible source of income. This is true both in the case of natural resources sold almost exclusively on the domestic market, such as Guatemalan Christmas trees, and even more so when strong overseas demand comes into play, exerting unstoppable pressure.
This is what happened to the ancient and precious forests of the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia, whose timber supplied cheap plywood panels to Japan's construction boom, allowing—paradoxically—the Japanese government to boast about the good condition of its own forests (I owe this example to Peter Dauvergne's The Shadows of Consumption). The same is happening today with the deforestation of the Amazon, to make way for mines or to obtain land for growing soybeans to feed livestock to meet the growing global demand for meat.
In essence, if we try to look at the world as a whole – which it effectively is in economic terms – it becomes clear that environmental management is more similar to that of the countries of the ‘global south’ than to that of the countries of the ‘global north’.
In fact, the global system is largely unable to protect ecosystems that are far removed from the world's centers of political, economic, and financial power: those of countries where, even at the time of colonization, ‘extractive’ institutions were established, to the detriment of local resources (I am quoting Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, the three winners of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics).
This state of affairs is open to criticism, not only in terms of justice, but also in terms of foresight, because imbalances are then transmitted across the planet through environmental channels (climate change, loss of biodiversity, etc.) or social channels (migration, drug smuggling, etc.). In order to move closer to the good management practices that have preserved or improved many local ecosystems in the most economically and politically advanced countries, the world needs to consider itself as a single entity. The modest results achieved so far at the COPs, the United Nations conferences on climate change, the 30th of which was held last November in Brazil, show us how far we still have to go. Not to mention wars, whose tragic consequences affect forests as well as people, homes, and infrastructure (an article in Woodcentral reported that 1.7 million hectares of forest were destroyed in Ukraine in the first three years of the conflict).
A small sign of hope—at the end of this piece, I would like to add at least one—is the “debt-for-nature swap” soon to be signed between the Republic of Congo (the one with the capital Brazzaville, a former French colony) and a group of creditors, under which the latter would waive the repayment of several hundred million dollars in exchange for the government's commitment to invest in the conservation of the rainforest that stretches around the great river from which the country takes its name (as does the Democratic Republic of Congo), following in the footsteps of a similar agreement signed by Gabon in 2023.
Even between humans and trees, there is peace to be made.