Start Slideshow
100 million roses grown for Valentine's Day produce 9,000 metric tons of CO2Roses may be red, but they're definitely not green according to research from Scientific American. As millions of partners exchange bunches of red roses in the run up to Valentine's Day, they may want to consider that the traditional flower of love has an environmental impact worse than most other crops.1
Red RosesAccording to <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/podcast.mp3?e_id=B08208CE-946F-903D-3D4BBCD27AAE020F">Scientific American's podcast</a>, as roses are generally grown in warmer climates—such as South America for US markets and Africa for Europeans—they have to be flown all over the world. On top of the flights, they also have to be driven in temperature-controlled trucks across countries and stored overnight in cold boxes.2
woman with rose petalsOh and I forgot to mention the fuel needed for those refrigeration trucks: all fossils fuels, not to mention the fact that refrigerant gases also exacerbate climate change. If you want to get flowers for your other half, we'd like to recommend greener alternatives such as <a href="http://www.veriflora.com/">VeriFlora, </a>which sources its flowers locally. Or why even bother with flowers? Why not for something even greener like a <a href="http://inhabitat.com/human-powered-giradora-washer-needs-no-electricity-and-costs-only-40/">pedal-powered washing machine</a>?3
