It takes a lot of energy (carbon) to burn a body. However, if you dig a deep hole, put a some rose petals in the bottom and then the body and the dirt, you will require very little carbon energy output, AND you will give back to the earth. Many communities are now doing natural burials, without chemicals and among the beautiful forests which would benefit from the "compost".

Please check out "green burials". It does away with the problem of chemicals in the soil from embalming (should we be successful in having the cement liners done away with) and the ash from cremation. There are several sites in the U.S. but we need more people who are willing to contribute land for this way of burying people. Sandra, MA

There are places, like in South Carolina, that once your body has been cremated, it will be sunk into the ocean and a coral reef begins around you. How cool would this be?

Cremation or Burial???
Hmmmm....apparently an easy question but indeed trick for both methods will realese CO2 into the atmosphere... Which method exhausts less CO2 & CO into the atmosphere and if any of these molecules can be "re-used" positively, is indeed the quetsion.
I beleive the process of cremation has a higher carbon foot print than the clasic burial, and for that reason I truely think a burial is greener than cremation.
Here is why I beleive that:
Cremation is a non-natural process which reduces the mass of a person into ashes. The procces is iniciated with the generation of energy (produced by fossil fuels) to burn the body. All the light, heat and light energy produced during the combustion of the body is wasted. Similarly, all the fumes produced by the combustion of the person are not trapped, but released into the atmosphere contibuting to further increase the level of GHG in the atmosphere enhancing Global Warming.
Furthermore, the remaining ashes have barely no nutrients; therefore, even is the persons ashes were to be spread out outdoors, it would have very little impact in the nutrition of even the smallest organisms.
In the other hand, when ppl are buried (of course without a coffin or in a wooden one, otherwise the following argument does not necessarily apply), the entire mass of the person becomes potencial natural fertilizing material.
As soon as the body is burried, the micro organisms found in the ground trigger the natural cycles of carbon and nitrogen. Both cycles decompose the body of the person not only feeding vital ground bacteria and microrganisms, but also realizing valuable chemicals plants need to grow strong and healthy (ie. nitrates, CO2, sulfates, magnisium, etc.). As plants re-use the person's nutrients, these grow more and bigger leaves which will help them absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere and produce more oxygen molecules per part which will then be released into the atmosphere.

Burial. Sure, wrap Mama in a cotton sheet and plant her under the apple tree (or plant the apple tree on top). I guess this only works if you have land, and actually the zoning folks won't let you do it, which is a pity. If you cremate, you can scatter, but you can't just plant the unburned body. Odd but necessary. Otherwise, next thing you know, you have Jeffrey Daumer back at work.

Im going with cremation. I wouldn't mind being buried, but with today's burials people are first embalmed to preserve the body, then put into a sealed impervious casket and placed in a cemetary that in just a few short years, no one will remember who you are, let alone come to "see" your gravesite or place flowers, etc. Cemetarys utilize land space that could be used for the living. If I could be buried in a burlap sack under a tree somewhere for my body to decompose naturally, I might consider burial.

I think cremation will be the right option considering human population in present era. As burial will consume lot of ground space. Unlike old Indian method of burning in open, I would suggest burning corpse in an efficient furnace.

And would also like to know if there has been any comparison study made between burial and cremation considering environment factor. So i can instruct accordingly for my last rites and die a greener way :))

I plan on cremation and scattering my ashes at sea as I have done for my parents. Thus, this bit of matter will be returned to the primordial ooze from which we came.

I think this last solution proposed by Andy would be ideal, but probably not possible given the increasingly limited amount of land available for burials. I think cremation is the 'greenest' way, but there must be some way to use the fumes productively or re-absorb them so they enter the atmosphere minimally.

Burial will definitely be better. but will be if materials used can be turn into minerals. Cremation will produce plenty of greenhouse gases that will pollute the environment.

The only "green" burial are when no embalming is used and the body is placed in the ground with a cotton cloth wrap or wood box made without preservitive. Cremation speeds the process but cheats worms and other critters of food and the earth of nutrients. A couple of years ago I read about "green" cemetaries allowed in some forests. Sounds good to me.

Natural burial, i.e. no chemicals added to the body, decomposable wrappings or coffin. For more info, watch the PBS video "A Family Undertaking:POV" -- excellent!

What's the GreenTeam's expert advice on what happens to the _soil_ in contact with our uncoffined, unembalmed, buried bodies, we with our systems full of pesticidal & pharmaceutical chemicals?? Ooooh. Scary?

I look forward to being a cadaver in the interest of science.

I agree that donating to science is the ulimate in recycling. Maybe if more people donated their bodies, companies wouldn't have to use animals to do testing on. It's a win-win situation!

I'm all about cremation. Spread my ashes on a mountain top through the wildflowers. But I respect burials and I know some people need/desire the visual reminder.

I read that burial is actually greener, and one should be buried in a quick decomposing box, like cardboard. I would, of course, choose 100% post consumer recycled cardboard for my box :)

Obviously, Western burial practices are not earth friendly. Take a look of the acres and acres of marble wasted, out of guilt we bury our loved ones in imperious steel and satin lined caskets. The Jewish practices of not embalming the body and use of a plain wooden pine box is friendlier but still does nothing to make the earth productive. Burial still takes place in a cemetery.
If I have any usable parts, I will donate them. Then I would like to be "buried" at sea and become part of a coral reef!

Guess what, when someone is cremated, only about 2/8 of you goes to your loved ones in an urn or box. Most of the ashes are your coffin--containing paint, and other chemicals, and most of you and the rest of the coffin gets dumped in a very large grave site--somewhere. That all seeps into the earth and is recycled. Of course, that's only if your body parts aren't secretly sold to science nuts a-la-Frankenstien story mode.

So, maybe it's greener in that respect, but it's a waste of fuel and elctricity--moves the conveyer belt that shoves the coffin into the fire pit--and no matter how enclosed, some smell does spread out into the veiwing area--not pretty. So, in the latter respect, it's wasteful on fuel and adds carbon to the athmosphere.

PS Donation of organ's only gets you killed-off faster a local hospitals--your parts mean only $$$ to them. It does save lives, but mostly it makes them lots of money.

I think choice is important. That way, people will be more apt to choose the option best for their family...and that each choice should have the most "green" approach possible to have the least impact on the earth.

If we all are truly choosing to save our planet, the living organisms and non-living, the question should not be cremation or burial, the answer should be donating our bodies to science. Whether one is Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, we all believe our spirits enter heaven or a place of “eternal life” after we die on earth. The human body is a mass of atoms, elements that break down through decay or fire. By donating one's body to science, we can offer another human the chance of life, a new heart, liver, eyesight, lungs, and provide medical interns a human body to practice medical procedures and surgeries on rather than an artificial cadaver. We say we want to save our planet, yet both cremation and burial cause problems. Cremations emit more CO2 in the atmosphere and burial takes up more land, which eventually will be dug up for condominiums. (Reflect on what has occurred to the Native Americans. Many of their sacred burial grounds have been bull-dozered without any regard to the hallowed earth of the Natives ancestors) Contact your local teaching hospital and find out how to donate your body, not just an organ, your complete body to science. The potential for new biological discoveries are within reach and you can be a part of it by giving the gift of life to others by offering your lifeless mass of atoms to scientific research.
I am a Christian and also a scientist. Yes, they can coexist.

I think the relatives would be beside themselves watching the body tumbling into the dirt, out of the coffin, to become the fastest worm-food possible. The coffin is meant to delay the absoluteness of death, and seemingly preserve the body, just a little bit longer. To be practical, yes, we would just harvest all the organs then bury the rest, replenishing the soil. Perhaps we haven't evolved, yet, as a species, to simply allow death to be the end. Respect for the body, after death, is meant as a symbolic respect of the life that had existed within that body. The readiness to accept death is respectfully delayed by the use of a coffin. The soul lives on in our actions done in life, but death evokes the primitive in us all, as we process that profound change of circumstance to the individual and to those who loved him/her.

I say, donate the organs and help people psychologically process the bodily death by cremation of the leftovers.

Lead fillings in teeth cause a large amount of pollution when people are cremated. This has been identified as such a serious problem that crematoriums have to have filters in their chimneys. You can choose to be buried in a wicker coffin in a woodland site so your body and the coffin itself decompose naturally.

Burial CAN be green... But first, PLEASE donate all usable body parts for transplantation. Follow this with a green burial: no embalming, no box, just get the body in deep enough that the dogs can't dig you back up. And don't use your typical cemetary- these are not green. Burning CAN be green- but keep in mind toxins already in the body and that cremetories want bodies embalmed first... makes no sense, but this is what I was told.

I agree about donating the good parts...but then what to do with the parts that are no longer useful?

Just what sort of emissions are generated by cremation? ...and what effect to these emissions have on the environment?

Same goes for burial. Like the idea of burial w/o a coffin. What sort of pollutants remain in the soil after burial and what is the impact of these pollutants?

Recycle the the calories generated from burning bodies at the local power plant.
Manually grind bodies and make into fertilizer helping to grow trees.

Burial I say, Cremation is now days done with fossil fuel {lpg}. and the burning of wood is considerd a pollutant, even tho its a renewable resource were fossil fuel are not. So just as Andy Orsini said, Burial is the best way, Dust to dust.

Cremation is the better way to do it. We need the land! If you must be buried - use no imbalming fluids and use quickly decomposing materials - to go back to the earth as easily as possible.

I agree that burial would have less of a carbon impact that cremation. And of course you'd want to have organ donation prior to burial.

Putting one in the ground, without the box and cement liner, would certainly reduce carbon emissions. To reduce the land impacts, use the cemetary to create renewable energy with solar panels or wind turbines.

I've heard of "green" cemeteries where you are buried in simple wooden boxes in wooded areas and your site eventually decays and gets recycled.

I would not mind if I were buried between the rows of an orchard, say. The old song goes..."Don't go under the apple tree with anyone else but me...."

I'd be happy without a stone, but if they insist, I'd prefer that my family to commission a sculpture that kids could climb on in the park.

I'd say Burial. But first, I would donate ALL or MOST of my organs to science etc... Then Burial without coffins & cement-linings etc... Cremation is pointless because it would just pollute the air 7 you need ALLOT of heat for it; i.e: Fossil-Fuels would then be used but not renewed as easily! Burial at the sea could be an option, but theres always the risk of being swept to land by currents etc... The ropes will wear-out, My body would be light & would drift to the Middle-East & struck by a Nuke! What a waste the would be!!!

That was MY idea... Now WHAT IS Greener??!

I think burning but in an electic burner would save the space that burial occupies and save the wood that is required if u burn the natural way .

I've just read a study on this. Apparently the best option is to bury people in a cloth bag or shroud (i.e. not a box or coffin), and bury them about a meter below the surface of the ground where the worms etc. can do their magic. This way the body will be completely decomposed quite rapidly. Obviously the body should not be embalmed. Cremation on the other hand, produces posionous gases and uses a lot of energy in the combustion process.

cremation is best - it avoids grave robbers, saves space and is very final. god will still love you and accept you in heaven.

I agree with Andy, burial without the coffin is the greenest. My preference is organ donation, then remains to science, then cremation, and finally scattered to the forest. This way the resource is spread to the greatest of uses... just an opinion.

I agree the burial with a wooden coffin. Cremation requires energy and releases carbon into the atmosphere.

Natural burial is more environmental - cremation requires large amounts of energy over several hours - 1600 degress or something huge. There is a simeple burial/cremation company in Vermont - I think its called Last Rights and you can join for $300 and be 'processed' with the minimum of fuss and expense. Much better for friends and children to spend the money on a party!

I say to each their own, but why not treat the environment as friendly as you can with the choice you make!??!

We ought to stop being so abusive to this amazing planet we inhabit!!!

Maybe it is a comfort to families to know that their loved ones previous vessel(body) is in a specific spot? But people, it is decaying nonetheless. It is now~ once the person has passed but bones and flesh etc.

I'll be curious to hear what the experts say in regards to this issue.

lame

I spread my parents' ashes at the base of two big maple trees that stand side by side on our farm.

Burial may sound like the most environmentally friendly approach, but if you're burying people in a cemetery you need to take into account the energy that will be spent on maintaining the landscaping of the cemetery, including fertilizers, herbicides, lawn mower fuel, etc. And the nutrients are just feeding the lawn.

Burial without coffins, placing the body in cropland, would put the nutrients back in a useful location, but you'd have to worry about disease vectors.

I think cremation is the way to go. Then spread the ashes on the soil, or compost them, or rake them into the topsoil, so plants have access to the nutrients.

I see comments that primarily focus on the coffin materials vs. polluting the air. Well, something that has not been discussed is the chemicals used for embalming. The law, at least here in California, requires embalming for burial. Formaldehyde, methanol, ethanol, and other chemicals prevent the body from natural decomposition. The body just stays there forever (think of Eva Peron in her pristine state).

Additionally, these chemicals are quite toxic; but oddly enough, I haven't heard of any environmental impact reports on cemetaries and embalming practices. I wonder how much embalming chemicals are slowly leaching into the earth and their effects.

In my humble opinion, I wish we could just be buried in the ground, no encasement like a coffin (which IS wasteful), and just rot like we are supposed to. However, with the current laws about burial, I would prefer cremation. Although current cremation processes use carbon fuels to ignite the body, I'm afraid the long-term effects of embalming may be more harmful.

The following excerpt was taken from http://www.streetdrugs.org/embalm.htm:
"Effects from exposure to embalming fluid include: bronchitis, body tissue destruction, brain damage, lung damage, impaired coordination, and inflammation and sores in the throat, nose, and esophagus. IT IS EXTREMELY CARCINOGENIC."

Scary, scary!

The spirit has no more connection with the body after it departs, but, as the body was once the temple of the spirit, we Bahá'ís are taught that it must be treated with respect.Cremation is not allowed.

Burial, definitely, with no box. Ideally, the body would be laid in a bed of peat, straw, wood shavings, or other carbonaceous material to compost more quickly.

I think the whole idea of burying people 6 feet under and then planting a tree over them is beautiful. Eventually the molecules that made up the body with be absorbed into the molecular structure of the tree, maybe even producing fruit or other substances to nourish the living.

Renew, reuse, recycle - the cycle of life!

Cremation would be the way to go. Burial without a coffin would be weird in the future for others to be running in to all kinds of bones. Its someone going to collect them in the future. As far as using the body for science and it will help another humman being, great its ok as long as cremation follows. It is rediculous how some people pay lots of money to have a resting place with air condition, but they are out there.

Absolutely Lara! "Donating your organs" is what the ministry of public health started doing in Lebanon back in 2005 and it has worked well but in general people can hardly accept the idea of being chopped up after death. That's why an awareness campaign is needed to highlight the benefits of such actions.
As for the remains they will need to be buried or cremated. We should probably leave this as a personal choice as it can be a sensitive subject in religion.

I have a space in my family plot. There are 5 generations buried there. I can't decide if I want to be buried or cremated. Neither appeals to me.I wish our cremation practices were like in India. I just don't like the thought of being put in an oven. I have a friend who is a mortician and he told me all the gory details! But being buried doesn't do it for me either. Can't I just set sail in a Vlking ship and have someone shoot a flaming arrow at me? My Dad did donate his body to science, he was 91. Very cheap way to go, before that he said "just put me through the compost grinder". He was green long before it was popular:)

We all need to think about the next generations and the "land" that many are building on...as you are well aware "Land is not being produced" like chemicals and embalming fluids are that in time either seep into the ground or the vault and casket fill with ground waters that eventually seep BACK into the soil..and possibly surround water wells that feed the cities and or the private wells..and YES that has happened many times in different states and in rural houseing developements...especially when the burial places are high or the hills.. what has amazed me over the years is our PUBLIC Health Depts and State Depts of Health..I am sure none of you would care to live close to a cemetary with todays diseases as well as the fludis used...Ask about water testing and you will be told that usually only certain tests are run...and to run the 100 plus tests is cost prohibited..and with the 1000's of deaths and burials each year we are slowly polluting the ground for our future generations includeing your children and grandchildren...or are you liveing for yourself and not thinking of tomorrow or, or, or ?

Call me The,

RustyAnchor

Wow! Lots of great thoughts!

To reply specifically to the funeral director - it's true, some cemeteries have difficulty managing a natural burial, but many others don't. In the UK they're doing quite well with it. The funeral industry is really missing the boat when it complains about losing people to cremation but isn't ready to help a large number of its customers get what they REALLY want - a natural burial.

But that's the beauty of the free market - although it created this problem in the first place (due to over consolidation and just a teesy bit of greed...) now that people know they can do it, the free market will also FIX the problem -- funeral directors who want to do this ARE figuring out how. Funeral directors who don't, don't have to. In thirty years we'll be able to see which homes and cemeteries made the right choice.

As far as organ donation goes, I'm giving a presentation to the west coast's organ donor banks next month about natural burial and so far it looks like the only thing standing in the way is - guess what? - the people who say it can't be done. And that's NOT the organ donor groups, btw...

So, I'm glad that organ donation is handled by organ donor managers (who support this) and green burial is handled by green cemetery managers (who support this) and natural funerals are handled by funeral directors (who get it) and that's all that's needed to add the option; we can let discerning consumers take it from there!

After being in the Funeral industry for over 35 years and owing a cremation retort for over 10 years I'd like give you all some food for thought. Years ago we buried all the bodies is wood boxes. As the wood decayed the cemetery would have to come back year after year and refill the grave and reseed it. That was a cost driving item that cemeteries did not want. We then went to cement grave lines and then to waterproof grave vaults. Organ donors? Most are not used. There is a harvest time and most of them is past due when they recieve the organ. Did you know that to donate the whole body you would have to sign up months in advance and they do not take everone. Cemetery space and problem? If we lined all the cemeteries up side to side it would equal the size of the state of Road Island. Cremation is fine but please don't scatter! Where do you think the next generation will go to see their past loved ones? Some river? or golf corse.

I would think natural burial (with no big lead/concrete barries, or chemical preservation)... Just you rotting in the earth would be the greenest of all possibilities. No matter what fuel you use, cremation leaves CO2 gases behind. Dead bodies, not chemically preserved, rot relatively quickly and release nitrogen and carbon back in a way that is useful in the carbon/nitrogen cycle.