Burial involves chemicals and cement and treated wood coffins. These leach into the soil and take up space. Then again, cremation probably uses a lot of fossil fuels, both in cremation and transport. I would think the best option would be natural burial, although not all areas allow it, for some reason. Apparently, dead bodies in their natural state are "unsanitary".

I read recently, MahendraSharma, that cremations are causing a terrible depletion of Indian forests. The idea of cowdung fuel is of course interesting, but that is needed for cooking fuel.
All burning causes more CO2 - which I hadn't ever thought of. I had figured what was left of me after "recycling" should be cremated, because of the ridiculous waste with coffins and all. There are some places with green burials in a nice wooded area with wood coffin or less. I guess that's really the best!

I would think that low impact burial would be greenest. This would consist of: Recycle as much as the organ donor's willing, no embalming, plain wood box for ceremony's sake (could be low quality, like saw slabs), and burial directly in the soil's root zone. Plant a tree on top. In the next century, we could have a reason to plant six billion trees.

One should be buried in a simple "cloth" wrap. To completely be green, it could be of a Hemp-like substance. In time , as it has been written; "Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust. From once we came-so too shall we return. I feel strongly, "if" legal I wish this of my body, for it is ONLY the shell my "LIFE-FORCE" uses to help others through.

Cremation, dust to dust. There is not enough ground space to put all these bodies. How long does it take for a body to decompose?

Customary burial practices in the U.S. are horrifically ungreen. What 'burial folks' (funeral homes, regulatory agencies) don't disclose is that a person can be buried without all the added preservatives if put in the ground within a certain time frame - I'm thinking 48 hours, but not sure. The United States' current toxic-laden method is definitely NOT greener than cremation - to my mind. Just take me out in the woods, lean me against a tree and let me be 'recycled'.

I agree that we should go back to pine boxes for burial. Then everyone will want to live next to a cemetery, 'cause they'll have the greenest lawns in town. Having said that, I don't want to be cold, so I'm going to be cremated, which I'm sure, if done properly, does not pollute the atmosphere.

Organ donation first and then wicker or card board (recycled of course!) coffin. No need to use wood at all really.

Cremation of course, it is easier to control the pollutants produced from the burning process. Burial requires too much land and as was seen in Hurricane Katrina, graveyards, even old ones, can produce a serious threat to the water supply during heavy rains and flooding.

My first reaction would be burial but just remember, the embalming process releases chemicals into the soil (formaldehyde anyone?)not to mention the coffin materials. IN order for burial to be greener, we need to place the deceased into the ground with no box, and au natural.
SO my final answer would be cremation would have less of an impact.

I agree with "Lara" - a very many years ago I made the decision to donate all the organs that could be used by someone else and the rest for scientific research. That is a good way to really "give yourself" for a cause... :)

Personally, I will donate my body to the Body Farm to use in forensic science studies. I think either burial or cremation is not what I want done but like someone said earlier recycling is a better option.

Well, if you are talking about the most commonly used forms of burial and cremation (which we should probably be focusing on), I would have to vote for cremation as being more green. The fossil fuels used to dig a hole in the ground, line it with cement, manufacture and deliver a casket, manufacture and deliver a headstone, and then the whole funeral procession far outweigh the pollution from the natural gas pumped into a furnace. plus the footprint left on the earth after you've gone will be far smaller if you are cremated. just my thoughts.

My mother was cremated. My mother-in-law had a pine box hand made for her long before she needed it. That pine box stood on end in the garage until its need arose. I think that my wife's parents and my parents were wise enough to resolve this issue in environmentally sound ways. We can learn from them even after they are gone.

FIRST OF ALL I THINK THAT BURIAL IS MUCH GREENER CEREMONY THAT CREAMATION BECAUSE WHEN WE MAKE A CREAMTION WE BURN SOMEONE BODY AND BY THIS CEREMONY WE MAKE FIRE.BY BURY WE ONLY PUT HIS OR HER BODY IN THE GROUND AND COVER WITH DIRT.SO I BELIEVE AND ONLY IF THERE IS A PLACE T BURY WE BURY.AND IF THERE IS NOT PLACE TO BURY LIKE IN INDIA WERE ALL BODIES ARE BEING CREAMATE BECAUSE IN THIS REGION LIVING MORE THAN BILLION PEOPLE AND WHEN SOMEONE IS PASS AWAY THE LOCALS BURN HIS BODY AND THROUGH HIS ASHES TO THE RIVER.

In case of cremation, is it too contaminating to through the ashes to the ocean?

I totally agree with donating your organs / body but I think cremation is better because then the embalming fluid and other hazardous material doesn't go into the earth. And we are running out of space to put all the bodies. What about burning the body on a funeral pyer in the water?

at this time fire is the way to go......far less impact on the earth. if we could be buried in a cardboard box or just a shroud and left to decompose naturally then that is the way I'd go .....

I think cremation with organ donation

I agree with the opinions of #3 and #4.
Put me in nothing but an old pine box and let me start my transformation ride. Let my minerals and vitamins, and such, recycle back through the earth until they become part of the grass that the horses and cattle graze upon. And,if I should pass through some animal and be deposited back on the grass as a solid object, then I most certainly will have obtained that much anticipated REINCARNATION,and my friends, wandering by, will look down upon me and say, "Earl, you haven't changed all that much"!

THe present day process of burial is wasteful of resources, occupies to much land and uses toxic chemicals that evenutally will find the water table. Creamation contributes to air pollution but is greener than the latter burial process.
As others have stated here already the ancient and Native American burial process are much more in harmony with the planet's health. My plan was always to be buried beneath my garden (deep) wrapped in some sacred cloth, but that of course will be costly in lawyer fees to get the permission to do so. Oh the polluting webs we weave.

How about cremation AND burial?

At Great Burial Reef, we build living ocean reefs, and honor our loved ones by permanently placing sealed urns containing their cremated remains within the reef structures.

Best of both worlds...Green and Blue.

Jason

cremation, all the way.
From Dust to Dust...

Burial seems like a better way to go. But I agree with Lara about donating. And you should sign up to have your head frozen. You can set it up just like life insurance. It costs about the same.

Dr. Helen Caldicott was the keynote speaker at the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair 2007. She said she would be buried in a cardboard box to allow the worms to get to her easily. No formaldahyde as it is carcinogenic. She also endorsed Al Gore as the best candidate for President and said he should win the Nobel Prize. A DVD of her speech is available at MREA.org (715 592-6595) for $10.00 and is well worth it as she tells the truth about nuclear power. Dr. Caldicott's website is nuclearpolicy.org. Nuclear policy is not the answer!

i think burial is greener, because the body goes back to the ground and maybe it could help to the nature world...

I’ve decided that I’m leaving my body to organ donation and a local community college. Wouldn’t it be greener to add to our body of knowledge?

So, no cremation or burial for me, and it will actually save my family a ton of money and the planet the pollution I’d otherwise leave behind!

Cremation would be best I think because burial uses too much land.

I think Burial is greener cuz body is a part of nature and its easier for the enviroment to sorve it also body do not hurt the enviroment but in cremation , the body is burned so carbon assesment occurs.

There are three greener ways to dispose of dead bodies, both of which are respectful of the dead person and ok for the relatives/friends.
The first is burial at sea, but in the UK, I believe that only half a dozen people each year choose this.
Then there's cremation on a pyre of renewable wood, a tonne will be adequate, but not legal in UK, yet. Local Hindus are campaigning for a change in the law.
The greenest may be 'Promession', a compost burial which is fairly hi-tech, not just putting the cadaver in a pile of woodchips (like roadkill deer in New York State) but involves freezing, breaking up the frozen corpse on a vibrating table, freeze drying to remove the water, removal of metal fillings etc, and finally composting in the top 30 cm of soil in a small degradable box. This returns the body to carbon dioxide and humus.
Check out the Promessa Institute for more details. Not yet available in the UK but I want to make it happen.
Deep burial is not green as the body turns to methane, cremation uses 50 - 120 cubic metres of fossil fuel gas.
I look forward to more debate on this.

I meant 'all of which' not 'both'!

Sky burial like in Tibet. Chop up the body and leave it for the birds...

I read an interesting article in the New Scientist years ago that said that one of the Scandinavian countries has started using "freeze-drying" instead of cremation. I don't remember the details, but they said it was much better for the environment!

Indeed I feel all organic things being again buried in the ground must be 'greener' than burning which only increases the carbon in the atomosphere.
But I like the note about organ doner as well!

Lay the body in the ground without embalming. This is a "green" burial. It needs to be done fast or the body needs to be frozen. There is a tradition of putting the body in the ground within twenty four hours. I see a wisdom in this. When legal issues rise or families require then the freezing or embalming may be needed,otherwise please register my death and let my body feed Gaia.

I think this depends upon location. The rate of decomposition for organic matter varies with the amount of moisture and soil temperature. Thus one buried in Flordia will not be lingering. Where as one buried in the Rocky Mountains might be here a while. Crematories can be fitted with emission filtration similar to industrial plants that can reduce output when maintained and used properly. There are also enough active volcanoes around to use for natural cremation. Just a thought.

A green burial is best--there are "cemetaries" where you can be buried in a box (that you can buy in advance and use as a bookshelf) or even a shroud.

There is a national organization with a website: http://www.forestofmemories.org/industry/ You can also search "green funeral" for more articles and such. These cemetaries preserve open space and provide plants and trees (to absorb CO2) and that serve as recreational areas. It's a good thing all around.

As always, let your friends and family know what you want before it's too late!

burial without caskets or vaults ought to be greener.

Cremation is greener.

Not burial, unless we go back to no coffin AND no presevation techniques. All those chemicals injected into the body to keep things fresh are not exactly what I want going back into the environment. Cremation, yes pollutes the air, but can't be as harmful as the chemicals that would eventually leech into th ground water. If I had to vote, it would be the donation to science. Get some use out of my death.

Burial without chemicals and with guaranteed return to natural elements would be best - I don't know if this is allowed. The Health Department established protocols for handling of dead flesh because of the spread of disease in the past. Does anyone know what the ruling is these days about burial of a non-embalmed body in a rapidly recylced container of some sort? If Health Departments require the above, then my vote goes to cremation - no space used up and one is still returned to the environment.

Since I have donated my body to science after my death - what better way to dispose of the body, cremation, after all, as Christians we know that the spirit leaves the body at the time of death.

I'm opting for burial at sea...weigh my corpse down with organic matter...ie: rocks tied to the body with hemp rope & of course I'd like to be clad in organic cotton clothes..the body would sink to the bottom of the seabed...and voila...excellent fish food...the ultimate in recycling.

I agree with the organ donor thing and then donate the rest to medical schools so future doctors and researchers can learn and practice. Talk about recycling and teaching the next generation!

I believe in cremation but only after donating all of the organs.

Drop my body in the ocean and let the bottom feeders do the recycling. The bones can start a new coral reef. I used to be pro organ donation but the planet is overpopulated. We have arrogantly tried to beat Nature and in doing so successfully backed ourselves into a corner. Death is a chapter of existence so embrace that aspect of the journey.

I agree. I think burial is the most natural way to go but without all the "legal" necessities. Embalming, coffins, liners, etc. just add more waste materials. Decompostition is natural and is supposed to be recycling for the soil. Care should be given concerning water sources. Clint Eastwood said, "Buzzards gotta eat, just like worms." but leaving bodies laying around would spread disease as well as being unsightly. Make for a good halloween though.

Cremation is greener than the present mode of burial because it is the ultimate in recycling, especially if the ashes are buried or scattered.

Definitely cremation... but only after donating organs.

Wouldn't cremation release the carbon in a corpse as opposed to burrial which would sequester the carbon for the time it takes to decompose?