Greening America's Cemeteries

This column originally appeared in the February, 2013 issue of Funeral Home and Cemetery News by Nomis Publications, Inc.

Cemeteries respond to interest in natural burial.

Green Burial entered the American vernacular in 1998 with the opening of Ramsey Creek Preserve near Greenville, South Carolina.  In the 15 years since there has been much discussion regarding death care in America and green alternatives to conventional burial.  News articles tend to follow a formula with a cliche headline on death and burial.  Articles often include a quote from Joe Sehee, founder of the Green Burial Council (created in 2005) or James Olson, spokesman on green burial for the NFDA.  Most cite statistics on the volumes of hardwoods, steel, and concrete buried each year in America's cemeteries.  Many will mention Jessica Mitford's American Way of Death or a quote from the more contemporary and journalistic views in Grave Matters by Mark Harris.  Almost every story cites survey statistics to demonstrate growing public interest in green burial including the 2007 AARP poll indicating 21% of respondents were curious about or considering green burial and the 2008 Kates-Boylston survey finding 43% of respondents would consider a green burial.

A great many news stories on green burial originate from local TV and newspaper media announcing a green cemetery or a green burial at a local cemetery.  Many dozens of existing municipal, religious, and private cemeteries have opened new sections of property dedicated to varying "shades of green" burial services.  There is also the growing number of newly opened green cemeteries entirely committed to green burial such as Greenhaven Preserve near Columbia, South Carolina.

The Green Burial Council (GBC) characterizes three tiers of cemeteries in its green burial standard for cemeteries: Hybrid, Natural, and Conservation.  A Hybrid rating might include an existing traditional cemetery that would allow a burial without a vault or grave liner in any type of casket or burial shroud.  Riverview Cemetery established 1882 in Portland, Oregon is one such Hybrid cemetery allowing green interments in nearly every area of the cemetery.  While the GBC lists 20 such Hybrid cemeteries in North America and Canada on its web site, there are countless municipal cemeteries located in both rural and urban settings across America that have no strict requirements on the use of a burial vaults or caskets.  For most Americans, this "lighter shade of green" burial sans vault and with an eco-friendly casket is available nearby.

A Natural Burial Ground takes it up a notch in defining non-toxic practices to protect the environment.  The GBC uses several criteria including the cemetery's policies on burial vaults, caskets or shrouds, embalming, use of chemicals in lawn care, grave opening/closing techniques, and land status.  Land status must also guarantee adherence to green practices through deed restriction, conservation easement, or other irrevocable legally binding agreement in perpetuity.  The GBC lists a dozen cemeteries at this level.  At the highest standard, Conservation burial grounds are those that demonstrate a legally binding responsibility for perpetual stewardship of the land and are adjacent to land of ecological significance such as a park, wildlife corridor or critical habitat area.  There are four such cemeteries in the U.S. that have achieved the Conservation burial ground level as defined by the GBC including Honey Creek Woodlands (Conyers, GA), Foxfield Preserve (Wilmot, OH), Ramsey Creek Preserve (Westminster, SC), and White Eagle Memorial Preserve (Goldendale, WA).

The Green Burial Council has contributed much to an international conversation on green and natural burial by defining standards. But there are far more practitioners than there are certifications when it comes to greening America's cemeteries.  Inquiries for a "back to nature" burial are growing ever more common among America's cemeteries.   Graham Garner, warden/manager of the 17 acre West Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Friends South Western Burial Ground established in 1861, tells us that while they have not actively promoted green burials, they have had five such burial requests already--a significant number because sometimes a year will go by with no burials.  This cemetery, home to roughly 4000 grave sites, is the final resting place for Quakers (and others) seeking a simple "environmentally aware" burial.  Two families used simple wooden caskets, and three used cloth burial shrouds.  Graham explains they do not have vault or casket requirements, but they do have some restrictions on headstones.

A very new burial ground by contrast is the Natural Path Sanctuary that opened June, 2011 in Verona, Wisconsin.  Kevin Corrado, coordinator for the sanctuary, explains that while they prefer shrouded burials they will accept caskets made from "unfinished non-precious woods" and free of non-biodegradable materials.  Conventional practices including burial vaults, embalming, and grave markers are not allowed. All graves in the wooded sanctuary are dug and closed by hand.

In 2012, the Catholic Sentinel reported that Mount Calvary in Portland, Oregon became the second Catholic cemetery in the nation to offer a dedicated area of the cemetery for green burial.  Tim Corbett, superintendent of Catholic cemeteries for the Archdiocese of Portland, explains that he first started hearing about green burial six years ago.  He views this movement as a way for people to leave a natural legacy adding that if everyone opted for a green burial, he'd have 500 acres of endowed forest.  The St. Francis green burial section of the cemetery has space for 120 graves and will re-forest the area as interments are made.

The Green Burial Council and the Centre for Natural Burial each list more than 30 green burial sites in the U.S.  If we include all private, municipal, and church operated cemeteries offering green burial options there may already be more than 200 cemeteries in America where people can opt for a green burial.  Trend or fad, I'm optimistic that awareness on green burial continues to spread throughout America, more options are becoming available, and that our industry is changing for the better when it comes to protecting our natural habitat. 

Cremation Vs Burial

This column originally appeared in the January, 2013 issue of Funeral Home and Cemetery News by Nomis Publications, Inc.

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 choose 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 casket 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.

Wooden cremation containers reduce fossil fuel use.

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 (160 kg) CO2.  Other sources suggest the carbon impact of incineration is closer to 600 lbs (275 kg) CO2.  The Australian study at 350 lbs CO2 compares favorably to the impact of an imported steel casket at 2000 lbs (900 kg) 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.

An individual's choice is personal.

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? 

Green Illusions

This column originally appeared in the December, 2012 issue of Funeral Home and Cemetery News by Nomis Publications, Inc.

What lies ahead for sustainability in death care?

I borrowed the title for this month's column from author and scholar, Ozzie Zehner, who recently published a book of the same title.  Zehner explains in great detail how every alternative energy technology including solar, wind, nuclear, bio fuels, fuel cells, hydrogen and clean coal are extensions of the hydrocarbon economy.  Solar, wind, nuclear, and bio fuels actually cause more harm than good for the environment.   Fuel cells and hydrogen violate the laws of physics.  Worse yet, the hydrogen car and clean coal amount to little more than a hoax specifically designed to advance a political agenda for commercial gain.

Green Illusions is an intriguing and entertaining read, and I want to share one particularly useful insight by Zehner that applies to our death care industry.  America does not have an energy production problem.  America has an energy consumption problem.  That is to say that Americans use more energy than any other developed nation on earth.  Americans use more than twice as much energy per capita than Europeans or Japanese do.  The worst part is that an estimated 80% of energy consumed in the United States is wasted.  By "wasted" we mean that 80% of the energy we consume brings no enjoyment or improvement to our quality of life.  

How might Zehner's ideas on energy conservation apply to the death care industry?  Let us first take on the controversial endeavor to define green as it applies to funerals and the death care industry.  (I have avoided defining green for the last ten installments of this column.)  There are many definitions of green as it applies to the natural burial movement.  Definitions invoke terms such as biodegradable, non-toxic, carbon footprint, recycled, and organic.  I offer you my definition of green--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 is a broad definition that seeks to demonstrate clarity in its purpose.  We need to include all activities that support the cradle-to-grave life cycle of any product or service we aim to market as green.  This definition does not give credit to marketers whose products are just "less" toxic, or "less" harmful to the environment.  Such marketing is akin to marketing low-tar cigarettes as the "healthy" option.

Our broad definition of green gets even broader if we accept the idea that "all living things" should include future generations of living things.  And wider again if by "environment" we also include harmonious politics and healthy economies in addition to the well-being of the earth and the living things in her air, lands, and seas.  This sounds exceedingly difficult and perhaps a chore of calculus reserved only for those with a certain amount of insanity for mundane details or scholars adequately funded to ponder, measure, and publish the details of all the products and services involved in conventional funerals in the United States.

It doesn't need to be difficult.  Being Green can be as simple as following a personal ethic to "do the right thing" and never stop asking questions.  In my own experience making decisions about raw materials, suppliers, and methods of production, I am always asking questions.  Where does this stuff come from?  How is this stuff made?  Who makes this stuff?  What is the measurable impact of this stuff?  There is the magic word: measurable.  I continue to find good science in carbon life cycle analysis.  Every activity on the planet can be measured, to a degree of certainty, as either sequestering or producing carbon dioxide (CO2) or CO2 equivalents.

What might be the net effect on jobs for locally-made caskets?

Being Green should not end with carbon life cycle analysis; we must also include a broader appreciation for quality of life.  For example, a pair of jeans produced in a dimly lit sweatshop by the hands of a child in Indonesia might have a smaller carbon footprint than the same produced in New York City by a boutique seamstress.  We could hardly agree, however, that the effort of child labor is Green if we include quality of life, politics, and economic factors in our definition.  While we might want being Green to be entirely objective and scientific, we need to maintain some degree of common sense and compassion for quality of life in our pursuit to be Green.

Let us explore a few scientific facts about death care through our new lens of compassion.  The impact of producing the raw materials for America's funerals is in the neighborhood of 0.5% of United States annual CO2 emissions.  Caskets and burial vaults account for 30 million board feet of lumber, 90,000 tons of steel, and 1.6 million tons of concrete annually.  Add the impact of assembling, storing, and shipping caskets and burial vaults and the United States funeral industry is responsible for as much as 2% of total CO2 emissions annually.  We could reduce carbon emissions by 80% or more by simply using "green" caskets made from sustainable, local, air-dried lumber.  As an alternative to 2700 lb concrete burial vaults, polyethylene vaults are 95% lighter (140 lbs), stronger, and longer-lasting than concrete.  Although Polyethylene is not an eco-friendly material given that it creates one to three times its weight in CO2 emissions, the net impact over concrete would result in 80% savings in CO2 emissions annually.  Would these changes take away from the quality of life for all those involved?  What might be the net effect on jobs for locally-made caskets and polyethylene burial vaults?  We could achieve 1-2% reduction in CO2 emissions without spending an extra dime for these products.  Federal spending on wind energy amounted to $14 billion in 2012 resulting in an estimated annual savings of CO2 emissions far less than one tenth of one percent.  Just think about it.