Funerals, Fiber, and Fabric

Much of our discourse on green and natural burial is focused on the biodegradability and toxicity of casketed remains in a cemetery burial.  The five standards published by the Green Burial Council in 2011 for shrouds, urns, and burial containers extend our thinking on green burial to also include local-sourcing of organic or sustainable materials.  Let us explore the fibers and fabrics that are used in caskets and burial shrouds and how they measure up to our talking points on green and natural burial.

Organic cotton has a lower carbon footprint.

In previous installments of this column we've used five key talking points to measuring how green a funeral product or service might be.  The five talking points include biodegradability, toxicity, local-sourcing, sustainability, and carbon life cycle assessment.  Each of these talking points is evident in the Green Burial Council standards for burial containers, but not all five of these are necessarily in alignment all the time.  There are compromises to be made.  If we view each of these points through a lens of a harmonious and healthy environment for all living things, the compromises are easier to discuss.

The textile industry is the 5th largest contributor of carbon emissions in the United States followed by primary metals, nonmetallic mineral products, petroleum, and chemicals according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  

World-wide fabric production consumes 1,074 billion kWh of electricity or 140 million tons of coal and 2 trillion gallons of water annually.  Here in the United States the textile industry accounts for 1 ton, or 5%, of every individual's annual carbon footprint.  So when it comes to maintaining a healthy environment for living things, fiber and fabric matter.

The impact of fabric production can be broken into two components.  First, there is the production of fiber to make thread and second, there is the energy required to weave thread or yarn into fabric.  The energy required to operate a fabric mill to weave threads into fabric is about the same for both synthetic and natural fibers.  The differentiation is on the production side.  Natural fibers like hemp and cotton are cultivated and harvested.  Animal fibers like wool also require land and water resources to raise and harvest.  The good news is that agri-fibers are renewable and sustainable. While synthetic fibers like polyester and nylon do not have an agricultural impact, synthetics are produced from petroleum or other chemicals which have significant toxicity and carbon emissions.

Overall, the heaviest polluters and carbon producers are synthetic fabrics.  Polyester generates 21 lbs of CO2 emissions per ton of fabric produced.  Acrylics produce more than 25 lbs of CO2 and nylon is worse yet.  Domestic cotton by comparison, emits 13 lbs of CO2 per ton of fabric.  Organic cotton does not use nitrogen fertilizer.  Just 1 ton of nitrogen fertilizer emits more than 7 tons of CO2!  Domestic organic cotton weighs in at just over 5 lbs CO2 per ton of fabric produced.  

Organic cotton emits less than 1/4th of the CO2 that is emitted by the same amount of polyester.  In short, synthetics are bad, natural fibers are good, and organic fibers are better yet.

Descriptions for conventional casket interiors include words like taffeta, velvet, crepe, pebble, chalet, and chiffon, but nearly all conventional casket interiors are made from polyester.  Polyester fabric is available in various different weave patterns and textures that are durable, wrinkle-resistant, and easy to work with for making casket interiors.  Polyester is less than half the cost of cotton and far less than the cost of organic cotton.  So from a manufacturer's perspective, polyester is a logical choice for making casket interiors.

Lyocell is a low impact fabric alternative.

If we revisit the talking points on greening the funeral industry, any natural fiber-based fabric is biodegradable and organic fabrics have a smaller carbon footprint. Local-sourcing, however, limits our choices in the U.S.  The Green Burial Council standards limit material sourcing to within 3000 miles making domestic organic cotton a good choice.  While some Egyptian, Indian, and Romanian organic fabrics may have a smaller carbon footprint than even domestic organic cotton, these materials compromise on the local-sourcing standard.

On a side note, there is a growing variety of green burial caskets made from natural fiber plants including wicker, willow, cane, seagrass, bamboo, and banana leaves.  While all of these are 100% biodegradable, few meet the local-sourcing guideline for distribution in the United States.  European willow caskets and Indonesian seagrass caskets must be imported racking up carbon emissions from transportation.  Some of these natural fiber materials also fall under scrutiny in their production practices.  For example, the bamboo industry, while touting the sustainability of bamboo as a renewable resource has become subject of criticism for cultivating in marginal waters, displacing local fishing industries, polluting waters, and unfair labor practices.  Seagrass production in Indonesia has been subject to similar criticisms.

Recently the clothing and fashion industry has been subject to scrutiny on fair trade, safe working conditions, pollution, sustainability, and carbon life cycle assessment of textile production.  There is a bright side to all of this scrutiny.  The textile industry has organized the new Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) to address the many issues in world textile production.  This new standard is a tool for an international common understanding of environmentally friendly production systems and social accountability in the textile sector.  The new standard covers the production, processing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, exportation, importation and distribution of all natural fibers.  The standard is promoting the use of certified organic fibers, prohibition of all GMOs and their derivatives; and prohibition of a long list of synthetic chemicals (for example: formaldehyde and aromatic solvents are prohibited; dyestuffs must meet strict requirements such as threshold limits for heavy metals, no AZO colorants or aromatic amines and PVC cannot be used for packaging).  So there's a lot going on in the textile industry to change the way the fabrics are made to make for a healthier and safer environment for all living things.

Natural cotton monk's cloth casket liner.

So what is the Green Verdict for fabrics in caskets and burial shrouds?  We should look for fabrics made from natural fibers for their biodegradability. Organic fibers are slightly better in terms of carbon life cycle assessment.  On local-sourcing, domestic cotton is widely available.  Organic cotton is better from a toxicity perspective.  Cultivated fibers are renewable and sustainable materials.  Interesting alternatives not as easily available as cotton include lyocell, a wood-pulp fabric produced with low energy, fewer emissions, less water, and no bleach.  There are also eco-friendly fabrics

made from plants including hemp, soy, and linen (from flax).  These, too, are great green alternatives to the conventional polyester, but not as readily available as cotton.  Animal-based fabrics including cashmere (from goat hair) and alpaca wool would be green alternatives, but are expensive and long-lasting and thus may be better suited to clothing than casket interiors.  Domestic organic cotton might be the greenest and most readily available option for natural burial caskets and shrouds distributed in the U.S.

Are There Green Alternatives to Concrete Burial Vaults?

Are concrete burial vaults bad for the environment?  The Green Burial Council's position on steel and concrete burial vaults is that they must be "not required" in hybrid burial grounds and that they are "prohibited in Council-certified conservation and in natural and environmentally low-impact burial grounds."   Contrast this with claims on some web sites and in advertisements by both funeral homes and concrete vault manufacturers that concrete vaults are "green" because concrete is natural, biodegradable, non-toxic, or otherwise harmless to the environment.  So some of us might be left wondering just what is the problem with concrete burial vaults when it comes to being green or promoting natural burial?

Concrete is all around us and is an inexpensive, long-lasting, multipurpose building material.  As an undergraduate student in civil engineering, I found concrete fascinating.  It cures by absorbing water (hydration) not by drying like many people think.  This magic rock-like stuff gets stronger with age--especially with continued exposure to water.  I was present for the ceremony in 1998 at UW-Madison for the 100th year in a long-running experiment load-testing concrete cylinders that had been mixed by undergraduate students in 1898!  Each year, the cylinders stored in a room with 100% humidity continued to grow in strength whereas those left in dry conditions had long since plateaued.  What could be wrong with concrete?

Concrete is made from water, cement, and aggregate (sand & gravel).  While water and aggregate are relatively easy to come by and inexpensive, cement is not.  Cement is 85% lime and silica by mass plus gypsum and trace amounts of aluminum and iron.  Cement is typically made from calcium carbonate that must be mined, transported, and crushed before being loaded into a kiln.  These kilns are 12 feet in diameter and as long as a football field and heat the calcium carbonate to 2700 degrees F producing lime and lots of carbon dioxide.  The foreign elements, including toxic heavy metals such as mercury and cadmium, evaporate off and the remaining marble-sized material called "clinker" is then ground-up into a very fine powder we know as Portland cement mix.  The high temperature kilns require significant amounts of fossil fuels to bring up to operating temperature so these kilns are run continuously.  There are about 100 cement plants in North America.  The cement is transported all over North America by rail and truck for use in our highways, bridges, buildings, and of course, concrete burial vaults.

The environmental impact of concrete adds up quickly.  To manufacture and distribute cement and then mix and transport concrete is very expensive in terms of carbon life cycle analysis.  The concrete industry estimates that a little less than 1 ton of CO2 is released into the atmosphere for each ton of concrete we produce--and this includes a 30% improvement in CO2 production from concrete since then 1960s!  On a global scale, concrete production accounts for 5% to 10% of the total world carbon footprint.  In 2010 the United States alone produced an estimated 63.5 million tons of concrete.  In that same year, the funeral industry buried 1.6 million tons of concrete burial vaults.  Surprisingly, the funeral industry accounts for 2.5% of domestic concrete production.

A single concrete burial vault weights 1800 lbs. and ranges upward to 3000 lbs.  For a 1 ton burial vault we produce about 1 ton of CO2 to manufacture and transport the vault to a cemetery.  This is the same amount of CO2 that a four-person family produces in about 9 days.  It takes a tree about 40 years to sequester 1 ton of CO2.

With the exception of only two or three states, Massachusetts being one, most states do not require concrete or steel burial vaults.  However, most municipal and church maintained cemeteries do require burial vaults.  Burial vaults do have a practical purpose and every vault manufacture's web site is quick to explain the safety and aesthetic value of vaults in preventing grave collapse.  A cemetery operator would also tell you it is far easier to locate neighboring graves with a thin rod when identifying where to dig a new grave if the adjacent graves are vaulted.  Aside from the Green Burial Council's position to forego the vault altogether, could there be a green alternative to the concrete burial vault?

There are some ideas among green-thinking funeral directors and cemetery operators.  One simple idea is to use a vault lid to cover the casket.  If the grave is dug several inches wider than the casket on all sides with a casket-sized channel at the bottom of the grave, the soil could support a simple slab--just a vault lid--and get the benefit of preventing grave collapse with less concrete.  We can do better.

There's no shortage of research on greener concrete.  Carbon tax laws in countries like Australia have implemented a tax of $25 per ton of CO2 produced.  While such laws and regulations are prompting the building industry to improve concrete production methods by adding fly ash, bottom ash, or slag.  One Italian company has developed a concrete that is supposed to fight air pollution.  The mix includes titanium dioxide that absorbs ultraviolet light and purportedly breaks down pollutants in the air that collide with the concrete.  The Jubilee Church in Rome is made from this type of concrete.  In any case, all of these attempts to make green concrete are minimal at best in reducing carbon emissions.  We can do better.

There's a new vault company on the scene--since 2009, that is.  Massachusetts-based, Duke Burial Vaults, markets a plastic burial vault that is five times stronger than concrete, ten times lighter than concrete, and costs less.  Before we get too far, yes, plastic (even recycled plastic) comes with some cost in environmental impact and carbon life cycle analysis.  However, at 140 lbs shipping weight and as much as $1500 savings over concrete burial vaults, Duke has a value-proposition worth a good look.  The vaults are made from polyethylene inner and outer shells with polyethylene structural foam molded in between.  Lighter. Stronger. Cheaper.  But is it Greener?  Polyethylene ranges in CO2 output of 1-3 lbs. per 1 lb. of product produced.  Even at 3 lbs. CO2, that 140 lb vault might be responsible for 500 lbs. CO2 even after freight distribution.  The National Institutes of Health final report on the safety assessment on polyethylene tells us this stuff is pretty safe.  Which is good news because polyethylene is widely used in cosmetics, food packaging, prosthetics, and various implant devices in medicine.  

So what is the Green verdict?  If one can forego a burial vault altogether, that is the greenest option.  But if a vault is required, a Duke burial vault is at least 4 times less harmful in terms of carbon life cycle analysis, and has almost zero impact in terms of environmental pollution.  And if you are a funeral directory or cemetery operator, the best news might be that this green alternative can save money and add a few dollars to your bottom line.

Concrete Burial Vault Facts

• Concrete Burial vaults range from 1800 lbs to 2400 lbs.
• 1 ton of concrete produces ~1 ton of CO2
• The concrete industry accounts for 5% to 10% of the world's carbon footprint
• The average household of 4 people in America produces 40 tons of CO2 per year
• It takes a tree about 40 years to absorb 1 ton of CO2.
• The US Congress has proposed carbon tax $25/ton of CO2-e (this already exists in Australia)
• Every year, we bury 1,636,000 tons of reinforced concrete burial vaults in America's cemeteries
• The total concrete in made in the US in 2010 is a combined total of 63.5 million tonnes

Could Green + Gold be the New Black?

There's been an awful lot of talk in the last several years about keeping the funeral industry out of The Red.  Business is changing due to all kinds of trends: decreasing death rate, increasing cremation rate, rising employer costs, rising cost of health care, decreasing asset to debt ratios, and more.  Every one of these topics is the subject of news articles and op-ed pieces in every publication on- or off-line from which we opt to fill our minds.  There's no shortage of opinions on the profitability (or lack thereof) in death care service or where the industry is headed next.  One thing for sure is that for those fifth and sixth generation funeral directors, operating a funeral service business today is nothing like it was five generations ago when cash and bartering were the primary means of transacting business.

Last year in this column I wrote about the Golden Circle of Motivation as presented by Simon Sinek in a TED talk.  In about ten minutes Mr. Sinek makes a compelling argument for any commercial business to re-invent our marketing message to focus on why we do what we do.  Answers like "to make money" are not valid.  A business makes money to exist, it does not exist to make money.  Mr. Sinek uses breathing as an analogy.  We breath to live, not the other way around.  Typically most employees in a business can explain what they do.  Very few can explain how they do it.  And even fewer know why.  For some firms, nobody can articulate why their firm exists.  But those who can explain why, and can explain effectively, already have their go-to-market message.

Why do we make eco-friendly caskets?

In these contemporary times of volatile markets, political challenges, and ever-rising cost of doing business, it is hard enough to keep a business in The Black.  Add to our challenges this new breed of consumer with the loyalty of Benedict Arnold and the attention span of Sponge Bob inhaling more information in a minute today than our forefathers consumed in an entire month.  Could Green and Gold be the new Black?

Nine years ago, I built my first casket.  Eight years ago I sold my first "green" casket.  About five years ago I discovered, almost by accident, that people were more interested in why I build caskets than how I build them (the what has always been obvious).  Like many businesses, I had a web site that described what I was selling.  For a short period I thought I was clever in describing how I was achieving the what but I bored every sorry chap that read my web pages.  Then about two years ago I listened to Simon Sinek's TED talk and things haven't been the same since.  Sales have more than doubled in each of the two years since I have re-focused my go-to-market messaging on why I build environmentally friendly caskets.

I share this with you and anyone interested enough to re-think their marketing message.  For those of you who are 5th or 6th generation funeral directors, I applaud you.  For those of you just entering this industry, I applaud you.  You are both likely very close to explaining "why" you have remained in, or have recently chosen, this profession.  As for the rest of us… can we quickly and effectively explain "why does my firm exist" or "why am I a funeral director" to a 10 year-old?  Keep in mind that "make money" is a cop-out answer.  Not everyone's answer is the same--and need not be.  Your answer is your own--it is your Golden Circle of Motivation.  Making your motivation transparent for your customers will have a profound impact on both their attention span and their loyalty.

So maybe you get the Gold, but where's the Green in the Black?  I illustrate with my own experience.  I don't build caskets to make money--there are a lot of other ways I could make money, and some are far easier than making caskets.  And I don't just make caskets.  I make sustainable, eco-friendly, non-toxic, locally sourced, carbon-negative caskets because I am fascinated by the challenge of building a business on Smarter Planet ideas.  I plant lots and lots of trees because I believe that nobody can argue that planting trees isn't a great

Planting trees is a good thing.

thing.  I source raw materials and manufacture with local talent so that I can create jobs in my community.  This is my passion.  Before listening to Mr. Sinek, I was shy about my passion and kept my motivations private.  I now realize that not only was there no need to hide my motivation, but instead making myself transparent has only helped to build trust in personal relationships, longer attention spans, and true loyalty from our customers.

I invite you to find the why in your motivation.  Yes, I admit Green is arguably an already over-played marketing moniker and trend.  It is no longer relevant to a consumer to tout our wares as simply Green--that's not good enough.  Go for the Gold and tell your customers why you do what you do.  If you can sprinkle a little Green into that Gold I assure you will find yourself a whole new Black.

A Fresh Green Perspective on the Cremation vs. Burial Debate

Every year in America, more and more families opt for cremation as an alternative to a casket and a cemetery burial.  A trend that began in the 1960s with less than 4%, the cremation rate in the U.S. reached 40% in 2010.  With growing interest in sustainability some marketers have espoused cremation as a green alternative to a casketed burial in a cemetery.  Let us examine cremation with carbon life cycle assessment and our definition of Green as it applies to death care to also include political, economic, and toxicity perspectives in promoting a healthy environment for all living things.

A typical cremation includes a cardboard cremation tray or container and human remains.  Cremation uses high-temperature burning, vaporization, and oxidation to reduce human remains to basic chemical compounds including gases and mineral fragments. Crematoriums in the U.S. use a fossil-fuel powered incineration process that takes 2-3 hours for the stages of warm-up and burning with temperatures reaching 1800 degrees Fahrenheit.  An Australian study determined the combined release of CO2 from burning the fossil fuel, cremation container, and human remains is 350 lbs CO2.  Other sources suggest the carbon impact of incineration is closer to 600 lbs CO2 and depends on the mass of the human remains.  

The manufacture and distribution of a steel casket compares at 2000 lbs CO2--that is four to six times more CO2 than the cremation. The Australian study at 350 lbs CO2 compares favorably to a steel casket.  On the other hand, the carbon impact of a green casket made locally from sustainable material is just 50 lbs CO2.  In this comparison, a cremation has seven to ten times greater carbon impact! 

An interesting side note might be to combine a green casket alternative with cremation.  By substituting a locally made sustainable wooden casket as a cremation container, we can actually reduce the carbon impact. Cardboard is a water intensive process and 1 lb of cardboard generates almost 4 lbs of CO2 equivalents.  Interestingly, a 2011 Netherlands study revealed that cremation with wooden caskets result in less fossil-fuel used during incineration.  The wood serves as a renewable fuel source--thus the more wood used in the cremation container, the less fuel required during incineration. 

The toxicity of cremation is harder to quantify than the carbon impact.  Cremation generates emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, mercury, hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), NMVOCs, and other heavy metals, in addition to Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP).   For a human body that contains metal implants or dental fillings, the impact of incineration releases harmful dioxins and mercury--there is an ongoing debate on how to address mercury poisoning from cremation which the United States EPA believes is the 3rd largest contributor of air-born mercury contamination.  The United Nations has estimated that 0.2% of the global emission of dioxins and furans are from cremation.  While embalming is not required for direct cremation, circumstances that include a viewing or service prior to cremation often include embalming.  The toxic gases released by cremating an embalmed body are cause for further controversy over the health and environmental impacts of cremation.

One green argument in favor of cremation invokes the social, political, and economic factors of land use.  Studies in Australia and the Netherlands concluded that the carbon impact of cemetery maintenance alone could account for as much as 30 lbs CO2 per grave site every year.  Some believe that a casketed burial in a cemetery occupies precious land space that could serve other useful purposes.  The Netherlands study points out that land competition is a contributing factor for cremation if we consider the land use involved in producing the particleboard, wood, and cotton used in cremation containers.  Add to this the land use required to extract, refine, store, and distribute fossil fuels.  We should also consider that a large contributor to the growing popularity of cremation since the 1960s has to do with the acceptance of cremation by the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church maintains that cremated remains must be entombed in an appropriate container in a cemetery, mausoleum, or columbarium--all of which occupy land space.  From a full-story perspective on land use by itself, cremation and cemetery burial might be comparable in environmental, political, and economic factors when it comes to promoting a healthy environment for all living things. 

I offer another consideration on the subject land competition when comparing cemetery burials with cremation.  America's cemeteries serve our cities, villages, and towns as green space.  Some cemeteries serve their communities in the same way that a park does by offering a safe and quiet place for a walk or exercise.  Cemeteries provide wildlife habitat for birds, butterflies, and squirrels as well as storm water run-off control.  More recently, America's growing number of conservation cemeteries for natural burials both preserve and protect lands for public enjoyment and for natural wildlife habitat.  Families concerned about land competition may be interested in options for nearby conservation cemeteries where funds raised through the sale of burial plots serve to maintain and protect the land for conservation, wildlife, and recreational purposes.

Every individual has the liberty to make their own choices when it comes to end-of-life care.  We in the death care industry must take responsibility for ensuring an individual's choice be an informed one.  We fail to serve our families if we are complacent in accepting an individual's decision without understanding the motivation or values upon which that decision was made.  That is not to say we should question an individual's values, but rather educate with factual content so that our families can make informed decisions in accordance with their individual values.  After all, isn't it our duty to inform our families without questioning their values or judging their wishes? 

What is the role of biodegradability in greening the funeral industry?

Very often the first question asked of me at a presentation on greening the funeral industry goes something like this, "Isn't the whole idea of a green burial to completely decompose within a few years?"  There are three ideas hidden in this question worth exploring.  First, notice the assumption that the green in green burial is entirely about a single idea.  Second, the question suggests that biodegradability is this single idea.  And third, I find it interesting that so many people believe that rate of decay has significance in being green--as if returning to our earthly elements should be a race.

Greening the funeral industry is not entirely about a single idea.  There are many perspectives we ought to consider when talking to families.  After many years of conversations, reading countless books and articles, and cognitive discourse with industry professionals, academics, and families on this topic, I have adopted a definition of green burial to include several perspectives such as biodegradability, toxicity, sustainability, local-sourcing, and carbon life cycle assessment.  These perspectives overlap and are interrelated.  I believe that being green is a matter of maintaining or improving quality of life for all living things in the environment as they may be affected by the creation, use, and disposition of a product or service.  This definition of being green applies to any product or service and the cradle-to-grave activities that occur as a result of our choice to use that product or service--whether directly or indirectly.

More importantly, I offer that we must further allow leeway in our definition of being green, especially when it comes to funerals, so that we accommodate the different perspectives of individuals.  People have different core values and various experiences upon which their own attitudes toward the environment and perspectives on green burial will differ.  As professionals in funeral service we must recognize that an individual who values sustainability and local-sourcing over biodegradability would not be satisfied with an imported seagrass or wicker casket though it is marketed as a green casket and is 100% biodegradable.  The more we learn about the core values and experiences of our families, the better we can assist them in making choices consistent with their values.

Why is biodegradability so often the first perspective considered in green burial?  First of all, biodegradability is not a new term and not nearly as complex as sustainability or carbon life cycle assessment.  Moreover, people are familiar with "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" and how this centuries-old epitaph suggests that returning to our earthly elements is as natural as it is green.  Then consider the fact that biodegradability is easy to quantify and measure--thus most green, natural burial, and conservation cemeteries have a biodegradability requirement or standard for burial containers and/or monuments.  Biodegradability is a good perspective, but it ought not be the only perspective if our definition of green is to include "maintaining or improving quality of life for all living things."

Let's think on this idea of rapidly returning to the earth somehow being greener than a slower return.  I believe this attitude may originate in individuals who are thinking about preservation through embalming, refrigeration, sealed caskets, and sealed burial vaults.  These practices invoke additional and interrelated perspectives such as toxicity, sustainability, carbon footprint, and land use.  However, the perspective on biodegradability alone is neutral, if not contradictory.  If we consider the pathology of decay for our human remains alone--without attention to the surrounding activities to accelerate decomposition (i.e. cremation, alkali resomation, cryomation) or decelerate decomposition (i.e. embalming, refrigeration) then the argument for biodegradability being green is moot.  Take this one step further and bring in the perspective on carbon footprint.  It would actually be better if our bodies were never to decay--somehow trapping permanently, or sequestering, the carbon that makes up a large part of our body mass.

The same is true if we consider the toxins our bodies accumulate throughout life.  A perspective on toxicity would suggest we contain these toxins or slow decay to give nature time to neutralize these toxins.  Take for example TED talk guest and award winner in designBoom, Jae Rhim Lee, and her Mushroom Death Suit. Her invention is a set of hooded pajamas laced with mushroom spores selected for their ability to cleanse the hundreds of toxins that accumulate in the human body during life.  Yes, that is disposition of human remains by way of feeding the fungi!  

Back to maintaining and preserving the quality of life for all living things in the environment.  Perhaps biodegradability alone should not be our first or most important perspective in greening the funeral industry.  It is an excellent start--easy to observe, easy to explain, and easy to write standards for.  There is precedent for biodegradability requirements in burial practices in many religions around the world including Orthodox and Muslim faiths.  It makes good sense to start with biodegradability, but isn't it time we expand the conversation in funeral service?

Let us advance into this next decade of the green and natural burial movement in North America by adding toxicity, sustainability, local-sourcing, and carbon life cycle assessment to the conversation. We're bound to learn something.

Is Cremation a Green Alternative to a Casketed Cemetery Burial?

In the last decade cremation has continued to grow in its appeal to families in America.  The percentage of deaths in the U.S. where families have chosen cremation has grown from less than 4% in 1960 to more than 40% annually.  With growing interest in sustainability, many marketers have touted cremation as a green alternative to a casketed burial in a cemetery.  Let us examine cremation with carbon life cycle assessment and our definition of Green as it applies to death care to also include the political and economic factors in promoting a healthy environment for all living things.

Consider a typical cremation that includes a wooden cremation container and human remains.  Interestingly, a 2011 Netherlands study revealed that cremation with wooden caskets result in less fossil-fuel used during incineration.  The wood serves as a renewable fuel source--thus the more wood used in the cremation container, the less fuel required during incineration.  The fossil-fuel powered cremation process takes 2-3 hours for the stages of warm-up and incineration where temperatures reach 1800 degrees Fahrenheit.  An Australian study determined the combined release of CO2 from burning the fossil fuel, cremation container, and human remains is 350 lbs CO2.  Other sources suggest the carbon impact of incineration is closer to 600 lbs CO2.  The Australian study at 350 lbs CO2 compares favorably to the impact of an imported steel casket at 2000 lbs CO2.  However, cremation is 7 times greater than the impact of a green casket made locally from sustainable materials at 50 lbs CO2.  

The toxicity of cremation is harder to quantify than the carbon impact.  Cremation generates emissions of nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, mercury, hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), NMVOCs, and other heavy metals, in addition to Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP).   For a human body that contains metal implants or dental fillings, the impact of incineration releases harmful dioxins and mercury--there is an ongoing debate on how to address mercury poisoning from cremation which the United States EPA believes is the 3rd largest contributor of air-born mercury contamination.  The United Nations has estimated that 0.2% of the global emission of dioxins and furans are from cremation.  While embalming is not required for direct cremation, circumstances that include a viewing or service prior to cremation often include embalming.  The toxic gases released by cremating an embalmed body are cause for further controversy over the health and environmental impacts of cremation.

One green argument in favor of cremation invokes the social, political, and economic factors of land use.  Studies in Australia and the Netherlands concluded that the carbon impact of cemetery maintenance alone could account for as much as 30 lbs CO2 per grave site every year.  Some believe that a casketed burial in a cemetery occupies precious land space that could serve other useful purposes.  The Netherlands study points out that land competition is a contributing factor for cremation if we consider the land use involved in producing the particleboard, wood, and cotton used in cremation containers.  Add to this the land use required to extract, refine, store, and distribute fossil fuels.  We should also consider that a large contributor to the growing popularity of cremation since the 1960s has to do with the acceptance of cremation by the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church maintains that cremated remains must be entombed in an appropriate container in a cemetery, mausoleum, or columbarium--all of which occupy land space.  From a full-story perspective on land use by itself, cremation and cemetery burial might be comparable in environmental, political, and economic factors when it comes to promoting a healthy environment for all living things. 

I offer another consideration on the subject land competition when comparing cemetery burials with cremation.  America's cemeteries serve our cities, villages, and towns as green space.  Some cemeteries serve their communities in the same way that a park does by offering a safe and quiet place for a walk or exercise.  Cemeteries provide wildlife habitat for birds, butterflies, and squirrels as well as storm water run-off control.  More recently, America's growing number of conservation cemeteries for natural burials both preserve and protect lands for public enjoyment and for natural wildlife habitat.  Families concerned about land competition may be interested in options for nearby conservation cemeteries where funds raised through the sale of burial plots serve to maintain and protect the land for conservation, wildlife, and recreational purposes.

Every individual should have the liberty to make their own choices when it comes to end-of-life care.  An individual's choice is personal.  What should be important to those of us in the death care industry is that an individual's choice be an informed one.  We fail to serve our families if we are complacent in accepting an individual's decision without understanding the motivation or base values behind that decision.  That is not to say we should question an individual's values, but rather inform with facts so that our families can make informed decisions in accordance with their individual values.  After all, isn't it our duty to inform our families without questioning their values or judging their wishes?