all 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 24 points 11 months ago (6 children)

how do you secure it in your roof without damaging shingles?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    https://safetyrailsource.com/products/nextgen-hitchclip

    With just a little pre-planning when the weather is ok, you can install some brackets or fall harness mounts under the shingles.

    Solar panel mounts would also work. There's plenty of things designed to mount to the roof while still maintaining water proofing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    Most things that mount to the roof just drill straight though everything and then add waterproofing sealant at the top of the hole/fastener anyway

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    No, most things slide under a shingle so the water never touches the fasteners.

    Some things screw right through with sealant on top, but that's not the best way to do it, cause sealant will break down over time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I agree with you that it is definitely not the best way, by far. However, of all the things I have seen installed on a roof, almost all of them have been installed this way. I think it also depends where you are and what kind of roof you have.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe a series of ropes behind it that go over the peak and hook around a drainpipe?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Don’t hook anything to a vent stack and especially do not hook anything to an appliance exhaust. You are asking for problems.

    Best way to do this is with a Christmas tree stand, secured with ropes over the top of the peak and off to the sides. Don’t penetrate the shingles.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago
    [+] 7 points 11 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 36 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    All Christmas trees get to die for a gimmick. What do you think the tree farms are for?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago

    Actually here in germany it has been a thing forever to get a tree with roots and all. You water it a little while it is with you and then plant it again in the ground.

    Obviously this doesnt work for really large trees, but still.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Bizarrely it's probably more eco friendly than not having the tradition since those tree farms probably wouldn't exist otherwise. It's not like the meat industry, it's probably net positive on emissions.

    Though, it would be better if we just reduced urban sprawl and deforestation of natural forests, etc., but that's how it goes I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago*

    My sister in law's family owns a christmas tree farm in Maine. They do replant what they cut and more, and its just like 3 people running it since it's all in the family on owned family land, so not bad for over 80 acres of evergreens

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Its definitely more eco friendly, the alternative is plastic trees which are worse for the environment.

    Christmas trees capture CO2 while they mature and are biodegradable/renewable

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    We have compost programs in my area, and they usually offer free christmas tree disposal. Some programs mulch them, and I think the Parks&Rec department uses the mulch to maintain parks.

    I don't really see a big downside.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Absolutely no downside, we should be advocating for natural trees vs the fake ones.

    Though, i must admit I'm guilty of temptation -- the thought of not having to wrangle lights with a prelit tree does entice me (i haven't given in though ✊)

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I guarantee you that's a tree farm. I'd gladly be proved wrong

    The uniform height, spacing, and lush branches are a key clue. I wish I took pictures on my last trip so I could show you what I'm talking about, but I was traveling through a place undergoing logging. In the forest, like you're thinking, the lower branches are dead because the crowns are crowding out the light. In the understory, lower light plants thrive, ones who can't really take full sun all day

    I say this to hopefully assuage your feelings about the picture. The tree did what it was meant to do, and in a spectacular way

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I feel like that makes the problem seem much worse, and not better?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    What problem? It's a tree from a tree farm that was grown for this purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    I meant that lightheartedly, though I do think that doing 5+ year grows on agricultural lots for purely gimmick purposes isn't too great, at least from a resource management and ecology standpoint. I'm not here to argue against christmas trees though, I just think LePoisson's rebuttal that one instance of a thing isn't a problem because we do lots of instances of that thing is logically flawed. I'm here to argue against the bad logic, not the trees.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)