>>1466
There was an article about doing this the other day in some publication or other.
The stunting of growth was made to sound difficult, but you'd still get a good few years out of a tree before it became too big.
The other piece of advice which sticks in my mind is that, after Christmas, don't just dump it outside; start by putting it out for the day and in for the night, as it'll take a little time to adjust to the cold.

OP I am with you, and my wife was ranting along exactly these lines this evening. A re-plantable tree is an excellent idea.

I have an artificial tree, but I've heard you have to use it for 20 years for it to be as environmental as using real trees every year.

>>1470

>you have to use it for 20 years

AHA! I TOLD THEM I WAS JUST BEING GREEN! I AM NOT A SKINFLINT!

>>1470 Surely this depends on the size of the tree, what it's made of, how much energy was used to make it, how far it was transported etc... Figures like this annoy me. They were probably produced by the Christmas Tree Farm lobby.

For example, if you reused a dead tree skeleton and green tinsel (or other material) that was to be chucked anyway, the environmental impact would probably be less than that for farming a single tree.

>>1474

Indeed.

Of course the best answer is to not care at all about such trivial things.

>>1466

We've done this, it does work, it's not hard. Just keep it outside, water when dry, expand pot when needed. If you want to stop it growing to much, just clip it down and snap the top off on a semi regular basis