Gothamist⁠77%

NYC's sanitation department wants to compost your 'naked' Christmas trees⁠0%

By Liam Quigley⁠0%

12/26/2025, 8:46:21 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Status Quo Bias, Loss Aversion, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 31.8% saturation with 71 hits. Analysis detected 313 faulty-reasoning hits from 223 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

New Yorkers looking to get rid of their Christmas trees previously had to rely on special collection days or bring the trees to mulching locations at city parks. 
Now, they’ll be able to dispose of them on the curb alongside other compostable items. 
Composting your Christmas tree is mandatory in New York City, and the sanitation department will collect “naked” Christmas trees – that is, trees without decorations, ornaments or stands – and wreaths on weekly curbside compost collection days. 
(You can find your collection schedule here.) 
Since the sanitation department rolled out curbside organics collection citywide, the trees can be tossed out on the same day sanitation workers arrive to collect food scraps and other organic waste. 
The trees are treated like other composting materials, such as food scraps, food-soiled paper products and yard waste. 
Recycling your tree at the parks department’s annual Mulchfest, which turns trees into wood chips that are used as fertilizer, is still an option. 
Participating locations for Mulchfest, which runs through Jan. 11, opened on Friday, though you may want to check if your site is open before hauling your tree over as forecasts call for up to 9 inches of snow in some parts of the city. 
The sanitation department said it won't collect artificial trees with the compost – those should be separated and recycled. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Liam Quigley: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 4.8%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 2.2%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 31.8%Liam Quigley: 10.2%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect31.8%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.3%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.0%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 2.0%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 19.7%Liam Quigley: 1.6%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion19.7%This article: 19.7%Liam Quigley: 8.7%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias19.7%This article: 6.7%Liam Quigley: 5.5%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Liam Quigley: 0.5%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.1%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 2.9%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 23.3%Liam Quigley: 1.9%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias23.3%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 2.9%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 4.6%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 8.0%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 8.5%Liam Quigley: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature8.5%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.0%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.8%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.5%Liam Quigley: 2.2%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma8.5%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 4.4%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 3.5%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 1.0%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Quigley: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%

223 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.