The trucking industry is looking to cut its large carbon footprint in the form of EV and hybrid big rigs. There are now almost 3 million tractor-trailers on the road using more than 36 billion gallons of diesel fuel each year, according to trucking industry experts.With diesel fuel prices rising once again, trucking companies around the country and in Baltimore are not only looking for ways to save money, but also save the environment -- and the answer may be in hybrid electric 18-wheelers.With a fleet of about 200 tractor-trailers, Baltimore's Marino Transportation Services, a family-owned trucking and transportation logistics company, felt it was time to look at what it could do to lessen the impact on the environment."We operate in a very carbon-rich environment. Trucking is historically dependent on carbon, but we at MTS feel it doesn't have to be that way going forward," said Joe Marino, sales manager at MTS.After some research, Marino found Hyliion, a company that is bringing hybrid and electric technology to commercial fleets. While Marino was interested in an all-electric big rig, he opted for a hybrid model as his company's routes are too long and loads were too heavy.Hyliion can outfit just about any long-haul truck for hybrid. The technology works with the rear axle generating electricity as the vehicle goes downhill. The electricity is stored in a battery, for which the power can then be used to assist going uphill, and most importantly, it becomes a power station for drivers that sleep in their cabs overnight, saving fuel and cutting down on exhaust."So, instead of idling your motor and emitting all those greenhouse gases for those eight to 10 hours that you're sleeping, we can now use the power that we generated through the trip that day, the power of the truck," Marino said.So, how does it drive? Nick Saban, area manager and driver for MTS, told sister station WBAL it handles like a regular rig."It's pretty seamless. The power is great. You don't feel any lag," Saban said.Being more conscious about the environment can also be good for business. Marino said they're trying to set the standard. Marino said thanks to Hyliion's technology, and a digital log kept inside the cab, MTS is able to help its customers cut their carbon footprints as well."Our customers all have (environmental, social and governance) initiatives to reduce their carbon footprints, and what we can do is with the alien product, we can give them weekly reports that show how many greenhouse gases we have reduced," Marino said.

It's that time of the year when most Americans finish Thanksgiving leftovers and venture out in search for the best holiday sales. More importantly, they plan their household centerpiece of the season: the Christmas tree.

While some revel in the scent of a real tree and the joy of picking one out at a local farm, others prefer the simplicity of artificial trees they can reuse for Christmases to come.

But consumers are becoming more climate-conscious, and considering which tree has the lowest impact on our rapidly warming planet has become a vital part of the holiday decision. Plus, choosing a planet-friendly tree will likely get you on Santa's good list.

So, which kind of tree has the lowest carbon footprint — a natural tree or a store-bought plastic tree? It's complicated, experts say.

"It's definitely a lot more nuanced and complex than you think," Andy Finton, the landscape conservation director and forest ecologist for the Nature Conservancy in Massachusetts, told CNN.

We've made a list — and checked it twice — of the things to know before you choose between real and artificial.

The case for artificial trees

It's easy to imagine that reusing an artificial tree year after year is the more sustainable option. But Finton says that if an artificial tree is used for six years — the average amount of time people tend to keep them — "the carbon cost is definitely greater" than for a natural tree.

"If the artificial trees are used for a longer lifespan, that balance changes," Finton told CNN. "And I've read that it would take 20 years for the carbon balance to be about equivalent."

That's because artificial trees are typically made of polyvinyl chloride plastic, or PVC. Plastic is petroleum-based and created at pollution-belching petrochemical facilities. Studies have also linked PVC plastic to cancer and other public health and environmental risks.

Then there's the transportation aspect. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, most artificial Christmas trees are imported into the US from China, meaning the products are carried by fossil fuel-powered ships across the Pacific Ocean, then moved by heavy freight trucks before it ultimately lands on the distributor's shelves or the consumer's doorstep.

The American Christmas Tree Association, a nonprofit that represents artificial tree manufacturers, commissioned WAP Sustainability Consulting for a study in 2018 that found the environmental impact of an artificial tree is better than a real tree if you use the fake tree for at least five years.

"Artificial trees were looked at [in the study] for factors such as manufacturing and overseas transportation," Jami Warner, executive director of ACTA, told CNN. "Planting, fertilizing and watering were taken into account for real trees, which have an approximate field cultivation period of seven to eight years."

What are the benefits of real trees?

On average, it takes seven years to fully grow a Christmas tree, according to the National Christmas Tree Association. And as it grows, it absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. Protecting forests and planting trees can help stave off the worst impacts of the climate crisis by removing the planet-warming gas from the atmosphere.

If trees are cut down or burned, they can release the carbon they've been storing back into the atmosphere. But Doug Hundley, spokesperson for the National Christmas Tree Association, which advocates for real trees, says the act of cutting down Christmas trees from a farm is balanced out when farmers immediately plant more seedlings to replace them.

"When we harvest the trees or cut them, we plant back very quickly," Hundley said.

If the idea of trekking through a forest to find the perfect tree is intriguing, you can buy a permit from the U.S. Forest Service, which encourages people to cut their own tree rather than buy an artificial one. According to Recreation.gov, cutting down thin trees in dense areas can improve forest health.

But Finton doesn't recommend pulling a Clark Griswold and chopping down a massive tree to haul home — especially if it's in an area you're not permitted for. He recommends getting a tree from a local farm, instead.

"To me, the benefit of going to a Christmas tree farm, which is different than cutting a tree in the forest, is that it concentrates the impact of removing trees into one location," he said. "And it puts the responsibility on the farmers to regenerate those trees."

There's also an economic benefit to going natural, since most of the trees people end up getting are grown at nearby farms. About 15,000 farms grow Christmas trees in the US alone, employing over 100,000 people either full or part-time in the industry, according to the National Christmas Tree Association.

"What we're doing by purchasing a natural Christmas tree is supporting local economies, local communities, local farmers and to me, that's a key part of the conservation equation," Finton said. "When a tree grower can reap economic benefits from their land, they're less likely to sell it for development and less likely to convert it to other uses."

Disposal matters

Trees pile up on the curbs after the holidays are over, and the final destination in many locations is landfills, where they contribute to emissions of methane — a powerful greenhouse gas roughly 80 times more potent that carbon dioxide.

"Real Christmas trees ending up in landfills is very much discouraged," Hundley said, adding that there needs to be "separate areas for yard waste where Christmas trees can go."

But some towns and cities repurpose the trees to benefit the climate and the environment. In New York City, trees left on curbs during a certain timeframe are picked up to be recycled or composted. The city sanitation department also hosts an initiative called MulchFest, where residents can bring their trees to be chipped for mulch and used to nourish other trees throughout the city.

"When the tree is finished being used by the homeowner, it's very easy and and common in America to have the tree chipped up into mulch — and that's stored carbon is put back in the ground," Hundley added.

Finton also says former Christmas trees can be reused for habitat restoration; they can help control erosion if placed along stream and river banks, and can even help underwater habitats thrive if they are placed in rivers and lakes.

The end of life for an artificial tree is much different. They end up in landfills — where they could take hundreds of years to decompose — or incinerators, where they release hazardous chemicals.

The bottom line

Weighing the complicated climate pros and cons, real Christmas trees have the edge. But if you choose to deck your halls artificially, get a tree you're going to love and reuse for many years.

Either way, Finton said, people should feel good about their decision and find other ways to tackle the climate crisis.

"It's a debate, but once you've made a decision, you should feel good about your decision, because there's so many other things we can do in our lives that have an even greater climate impact — such as driving less or advocating for policies that expand renewable energy," Finton said. "Enjoy the holidays and focus on other aspects of your life to reduce the impacts of climate change."

Hide Transcript
Show Transcript

THE SPLIT, A NINE MINUTE RIDE. LETICIA, THANK YOU SO MUCH, BRIAN. NEW THIS MORNING, LAB GROWN MEAT MADE FROM ANIMAL CELLS IS THOUGHT TO BE BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. BUT A NEW STUDY FROM UC DAVIS SHOWS THAT LAB GROWN MEAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A WORSE CARBON FOOTPRINT. JOINING US LIVE WITH THE DETAILS OF THIS NEW STUDY IS ONE OF THE AUTHORS, EDWARD SPANG. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US THIS MORNING. HAPPY TO BE HERE. EDWARD, TELL US THE TOP TAKEAWAYS FROM THE STUDY. YEAH. SO WE CONDUCTED A STUDY AND IT SHOWS THAT THERE’S A RISK THAT CULTURED MEAT ACTUALLY MIGHT BE WORSE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT IN SOME SITUATIONS THAN ANIMAL AGRICULTURE. MUCH OF THIS RISK IS THAT IF WE’RE USING PRODUCTION METHODS, TYPICAL OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY, IT REQUIRES REALLY RESOURCE INTENSIVE INGREDIENTS TO GROW THIS MATERIAL. THEN IF WE GROW IT IN SORT OF A FOOD FOOD PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT. WERE YOU SURPRISED BY WHAT YOU LEARNED WHEN YOU STARTED STUDYING THIS? DID YOU THINK THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE THE OUTCOME? YOU KNOW, WE CONDUCTED THE STUDY BECAUSE WE REALLY WANTED TO DIG INTO WHAT THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY LOOKS LIKE. A LOT OF THE STUDIES THAT ARE OUT THERE ARE VERY FORWARD LOOKING, YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE TECHNOLOGY MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN 5 OR 10 YEARS. BUT WE WERE CURIOUS AS TO WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW. AND AGAIN, OUR RESULTS SORT OF SHOWED THAT THERE COULD BE A RISK OF IT BEING WORSE THAN ANIMAL AGRICULTURE. BUT WE RAN A NUMBER OF SCENARIOS AND IN SOME SCENARIOS IT DID PERFORM BETTER THAN ANIMAL AGRICULTURE. SO THE STUDY OVERALL ISN’T REALLY AN ENDORSEMENT OF ONE OR THE OTHER. IT’S JUST A SORT OF A CAUTIONARY TALE THAT IF WE DON’T TRACK THIS INFORMATION CAREFULLY, WE MIGHT END UP IN A SITUATION WHERE WE’RE PRODUCING SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY IS WORSE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. HOW COMMON IS LAB GROWN MEAT RIGHT NOW? ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE ABLE TO PURCHASE IT AND CONSUME IT? AS WE SPEAK? IT’S NOT REALLY IN THE MARKETPLACE AT THIS POINT. I BELIEVE THERE’S ONE RESTAURANT IN SINGAPORE THAT’S SELLING CHICKEN NUGGETS WITH SOME LAB GROWN MEAT IN IT, BUT IT’S THE ENTIRE PRODUCT IS NOT LAB GROWN MEAT. AND IT’S VERY, VERY LIMITED IN ITS DISTRIBUTION RIGHT NOW. AND WHAT GOES INTO DOING A STUDY LIKE THIS? HOW MANY RESOURCES AND TIME DID YOU HAVE TO DEVOTE TO GET YOUR RESULTS? THIS STUDY ACTUALLY QUITE A BIT OF TIME. I WORKED WITH ONE OF MY GRADUATE STUDENTS, DEREK REISNER. HE DID A WONDERFUL JOB OF REALLY UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS OF OF CULTURED MEATS AND THINKING ABOUT ALL THE INPUTS AND OUTPUTS REQUIRED IN THE PROCESS. SO WHEN I TALK ABOUT INPUTS, I’M THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE INGREDIENTS THAT GO INTO FEED THESE ANIMAL CELLS. AND THAT’S GLUCOSE FOR ENERGY. SOME AMINO ACIDS TO GROW PROTEINS. AND WHEN YOU TRACK ALL THE INGREDIENTS GOING IN TO FEED THESE CELLS, IT’S QUITE RESOURCE INTENSIVE TO THINK ABOUT ALL THE FOOD WE NEED TO GROW TO FEED THE ANIMAL CELLS AND AS COMPANIES ARE THINKING ABOUT DOING THIS, WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST? THAT TO LIMIT THE CARBON FOOTPRINT WHEN PRODUCING THESE PRODUCTS? WELL, AS I SAID, THE INGREDIENTS ARE A MAJOR DRIVER HERE. SO WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HOW WE FEED THESE CELLS AND WHAT THEY’RE REALLY GOING TO REQUIRE IS A LOW COST INGREDIENT MIX THAT IS, YOU KNOW, NOT VERY RESOURCE INTENSIVE, BUT ALSO LOWERS THE RISK OF POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATE EATING THE BAT. WE REALLY WANT TO GROW THESE CELLS UNDER OPTIMAL CONDITIONS AND WE NEED TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE OF THOSE OPTIMAL CONDITIONS, BUT NOT HAVING INPUTS THAT ARE SO RESOURCE INTENSIVE. YOUR LAST MESSAGE FOR CONSUMERS WHEN THIS DOES FINALLY GO ON THE MARKET AND IT’S MORE WIDESPREAD, I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT THIS POTENTIAL NEW FOOD PRODUCT. THIS IS ENTIRELY NEW TO THE MARKET. IT’S EXCITING IN MANY WAYS, BUT WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE’S ONGOING SCIENTIFIC STUDIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS THIS PRODUCT THAT’S TOUTED AS BEING VERY GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT ACTUALLY IS. AND THAT’S JUST GOING TO REQUIRE FURTHER TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT AND FURTHER STUDY. EDWARD SPANG WITH UC DAVIS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SHARING YOUR STUDY WIT

Lab-grown meat could have a worse carbon footprint than animal agriculture, study says

Updated: 6:38 PM EDT Jun 6, 2023

Lab-grown meat made from animal cells is thought to be better for the environment. Now a study from the University of California, Davis, shows that lab-grown meat could potentially have a worse carbon footprint. One of the authors of the study, Edward Spang from UC Davis, said lab-grown meat isn't on the market in the United States yet, but there are things to consider before mass production.The study by UC Davis found the global warming potential to be four to 25 times greater than regular beef."We conducted a study, and it shows that there is a risk that cultured meat might be worse for the environment in some situations than animal agriculture," Sprang said. "Much of this risk is that if we are using production methods that are typical of the pharmaceutical industry, it requires really resource-intensive ingredients to grow this material than if we grow it in a food production environment." Watch the full interview in the video player above.

Lab-grown meat made from animal cells is thought to be better for the environment.

Now a study from the University of California, Davis, shows that lab-grown meat could potentially have a worse carbon footprint.

One of the authors of the study, Edward Spang from UC Davis, said lab-grown meat isn't on the market in the United States yet, but there are things to consider before mass production.

The study by UC Davis found the global warming potential to be four to 25 times greater than regular beef.

"We conducted a study, and it shows that there is a risk that cultured meat might be worse for the environment in some situations than animal agriculture," Sprang said. "Much of this risk is that if we are using production methods that are typical of the pharmaceutical industry, it requires really resource-intensive ingredients to grow this material than if we grow it in a food production environment."

Watch the full interview in the video player above.