13TJ

When I first introduced the concept of woodland burial in Cumbria in 1989, global warming andcarbon footprints had yet to be recognised. The scheme was originally intended for people who hadexpressed a need for an alternative to conventional cemeteries and cremation e.g. back gardenburials. A secondary appeal was that native woodland would be created thereby providing wildlifehabitats, especially for the diminishing red squirrel. As woodland burial evolved to become naturalburial, being buried under a tree or wildflowers became, for some, a personal statement in supportof the environment and their opposition to the problems of conventional burial and cremation.

I did not envisage the extent of this conflict and always saw a natural burial site as complimentaryto conventional cemeteries and crematoria. This was because the land is not available for naturalburial in most urban areas. As evidence of this, the majority of natural burial sites are located outin the countryside, possibly causing polluting road miles when travelling to the funeral, and onsubsequent, frequent, bereavement visits. The question needs to be asked as to whether, onbalance, this could be as environmentally damaging as cremation.

In reality, this dilemma may be avoided with some natural burials because the bereaved choose notto revisit the grave site after the funeral as it is not perceived as a shrine in the same way as a graveor cremation memorial. If they also reject embalming, choose an eco coffin and oppose the use ofair freighted flowers then accrued benefits after accounting for road miles to the site, might still bebetter for the environment.

Nonetheless, I have always feltthat grave re-use, and reclaimedgraves (the latter currently legalonly in London) in a localcemetery could be seen as arelatively green option. This isbecause the cortege couldconceivably walk to thecemetery for the funeral and allsubsequent grieving visitscould be on foot. As a funeral free of road miles this could be a far greener option than a naturalburial located at some distance. I have experienced over the years, a number of ‘walking’ funerals,the hearse excepted. Such graves could offer a lower carbon footprint than natural burial providingan eco coffin and other aspects commonly part of a natural burial were also utilised.

Over recent months I have spoken with people from the UK, New Zealand and America who areresearching natural burial and green funerals generally. They seemed to assume that natural burialsites were the only green option and as they lacked the in-depth knowledge of funerals, they failed

to appreciate the individual impact of each component onthe environment. Subsequently, musing over these problems,I recognised that the challenge was to put these issues downon paper in such a way that they could be more easilyunderstood by a lay person. I also felt it essential to accountfor all carbon and waste costs as well as harmful emissionsin order that all funerals could be assessed without theintrusion of prejudice for or against any particular form ofdisposal.

How Green is My Funeral?

cont’d over

Ken West MBE

14 Winter

A simple score sheet has been drawn up which is reproduced opposite. The topics involved inarranging a funeral are listed vertically starting at the top with embalming. By scoring each topicto left or right a minus or plus score is recorded. When choosing either burial or cremation, a furthernine other components of a funeral are listed. This enables a total score of -100 for the worst casescenario and +100 for the most environmentally aware. Needless to say, -100 is only possible byarranging a conventional, polluting cremation, and +100 by arranging an ecologically sound naturalburial. These high or low scores are less important than the real purpose of the exercise. This is toenable people to move away from a minus score towards a plus score by recognising that all tencomponents will influence the impact of their funeral, and if any one of these is ‘greened’ they helpthe environment in some small way.

Even though a conventional cremation scores very poorly its environmental impact can besignificantly reduced. A cremation score of +30 can be attained if embalming is rejected and an ecocoffin used. This score also requires a collection for charity in lieu of floral tributes, choosing a Bookof Remembrance memorial and limiting road miles. With similar components, a reused grave in themiddle of a city can attain +60.

It might be assumed that where the bereaved choose natural burial they will automatically exceedthese scores, but that is not necessarily the case. If the various components of a natural burial arenot green the score can be quite low. For instance, if embalming is used together with a chipboardcoffin, air freighted flowers, at a site over 20 miles from thehome, with a stone memorial and high road miles, the naturalburial score can dip to -50. In such cases a cremation couldhave less impact on the environment. This, I believe, showsthat the score sheet removes the opportunity for bias andhelps focus the mind on making meaningful decisions.

I am, though, concerned thatwith regard to conventionalburial, and especially grave re-use, the bereaved are notpresented with a level playing field. This is because the general standard of crematoria and naturalburial grounds is good, whilst conventional cemeteries, especially the Victorian burial plots wheregrave re-use will occur, are often so poor with their derelict memorials and roads, and lack of trees.If the standards in a local cemetery are this poor, the opportunity to create a low road mile funeralthat could challenge an attractive natural burial site is not realistic. This suggests that authoritiesintending to pursue grave re-use, as an ideal environmental and social policy, should be puttingtogether a strategy to raise standards now, as it cannot be achieved overnight.

Finally, I can appreciate how any attempt to measure funeral components such as grieving wastecan potentially upset the bereaved and, no doubt, attract adverse attention from the media.Nonetheless, the waste at cemeteries, natural burial grounds and crematoria is not to be ignored.It costs large sums to dispose of, and as it contains considerable green material, soil from pots, turfand other waste which rots, it is a major source of methane in landfill. Dare I say that it is the old whorepresent our principal visitors and they are often the least aware of these issues? I have alsodeliberately avoided the age old problem of whether we should enforce compliance on these issues.

How Green is My Funeral? concluded

In the past few decades we have moved away fromprescribing through regulations and have allowed peoplegreater choice and freedom. Is this compatible with caringfor the environment? I leave that decision to you bearingin mind that each of us has a personal responsibility, evenwhen disposing of our bodies. The funeral director whooperates a natural burial site in the Isle of Wight summedit up beautifully in his site brochure “Leave this world abetter place”.

LE

SS

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

LY

FR

IEN

DL

YM

OR

E E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

LL

Y F

RIE

ND

LY

LE

SS

SU

STA

INA

BL

E A

ND

MO

RE

INT

EN

SIV

EM

OR

E S

US

TA

INA

BL

E A

ND

LE

SS

INT

EN

SIV

E

-10

-5S

CO

RE

+5

+10

Usin

g fo

rma

lde

hyd

eU

sin

g s

ea

we

ed

extra

ct (s

till req

uire

s th

eE

MB

AL

MIN

G (o

ften

ca

lled

No

em

ba

lmin

g, b

od

y re

frige

ratio

nN

o e

mb

alm

ing

an

d b

od

y re

frige

ratio

nb

ase

un

acce

pta

ble

dis

po

sa

l of 4

litres o

f blo

od

hy

gie

nic

trea

tme

nt)

ove

r 5 d

ays p

rior to

dis

po

sa

lu

p to

5 d

ays p

rior to

dis

po

sa

ld

ow

n th

e p

ub

lic s

ew

er)

Am

eric

an

ca

ske

t/co

ffinC

on

ve

ntio

na

l i.e in

ch

ipb

oa

rd / M

DF

CH

OIC

E O

F C

OF

FIN

In c

ard

bo

ard

, ba

mb

oo

or o

the

r no

nIn

loca

lly m

ad

e w

icke

r, pa

pie

r-ma

ch

e, w

oo

dm

ad

e o

f rain

fore

st tim

be

rp

lastic

ha

nd

les, e

tclo

ca

lly p

rod

uce

d m

ate

rial

from

su

sta

ina

ble

so

urc

e, F

SC

ce

rtified

or m

eta

l(n

ot c

hip

bo

ard

/ MD

F) e

tc.

Air fre

igh

ted

flow

ers

inA

ir freig

hte

d flo

we

rs w

ith re

cycla

ble

FL

OR

AL

TR

IBU

TE

SL

oca

lly p

rod

uce

d flo

we

rs in

No

wre

ath

s a

nd

/or m

on

ey

pla

stic

fram

es w

ith o

asis

fram

es &

all g

ree

n m

ate

rial

recycla

ble

fram

es &

with

do

na

ted

to c

ha

rity o

r use

of

co

mp

oste

da

ll gre

en

ma

teria

l co

mp

oste

dg

ard

en

flow

ers

with

no

fram

es &

all g

ree

n m

ate

rial c

om

po

ste

d

De

ep

bu

rial/ o

r in c

lay o

r pe

at s

oils

BU

RIA

LB

uria

l in re

-use

d o

r recla

ime

dB

uria

l in n

atu

ral b

uria

l site

or w

ithin

the

wa

ter ta

ble

cre

atin

gg

rave

. Bu

rial in

na

tura

l bu

rial s

iteth

at a

cco

rds w

ith b

est

an

ae

rob

ic c

on

ditio

ns &

po

ten

tial fo

rw

he

re g

rass is

inte

nsiv

ely

mo

wn

pra

ctic

e e

.g b

ian

nu

al m

ow

ing

wa

ter p

ollu

tion

an

d/o

r me

tha

ne

em

issio

ns

Sa

me

da

y c

rem

atio

n in

Em

issio

ns re

du

ce

d 5

0%

by u

sin

gC

RE

MA

TIO

NN

o s

co

re a

s c

rem

atio

n n

ot s

usta

ina

ble

in v

iew

of p

rove

nco

nve

ntio

na

l ch

ipb

oa

rd/m

df

eco

co

ffin/w

aste

me

tal re

cycle

dh

arm

ful e

mis

sio

ns o

f me

rcu

ry, fura

ns, d

ioxin

s, e

tc.

co

ffin re

su

lting

in m

axim

um

em

issio

ns

Co

nve

ntio

na

l cre

ma

tion

Cre

ma

tion

with

sta

ffing

sh

ifts &

co

ffins h

eld

FIN

ITE

EN

ER

GY

US

E O

NB

uria

l usin

g m

ini-d

igg

er

Bu

rial w

he

re g

rave

isw

ith in

effic

ien

t cre

ma

tor

up

to 4

8 h

ou

rs to

red

uce

fue

l co

nsu

mp

tion

DIS

PO

SA

L O

F B

OD

Yh

an

d d

ug

Fu

ne

ral o

ve

r 20

mile

sF

un

era

l with

in 2

0 m

iles o

f ho

me

RO

AD

MIL

ES

ON

Fu

ne

ral w

ithin

10

mile

s o

f ho

me

Fu

ne

ral w

ithin

5 m

iles o

f ho

me

from

ho

me

FU

NE

RA

L

In s

ton

e c

ut &

sh

ipp

ed

from

In s

ton

e fro

m U

K s

ou

rce

ME

MO

RIA

LIn

recycle

d s

ton

e (o

ld m

em

oria

l?)

No

me

mo

rial, o

r ma

de

of p

ap

er,

Ind

ia o

r oth

er fo

reig

n s

ou

rce

or w

oo

d fro

m s

usta

ina

ble

so

urc

eve

llum

, lea

the

r , etc

. or in

ele

ctro

nic

form

Vis

its +

30

0 tim

es p

.a. to

Re

gu

lar v

isito

r, sa

y 1

50

time

s p

.a. to

GR

IEV

ING

WA

ST

ER

eg

ula

r vis

its to

site

bu

t use

s u

kL

ow

or n

o v

isits

to s

ite a

fter

lea

ve

air fre

igh

ted

flow

ers

,le

ave

air fre

igh

ted

flow

ers

,g

row

n flo

we

rs &

oth

er g

ree

na

be

rea

ve

me

nt o

r ne

ve

r lea

ve

s trib

ute

sp

lastic

po

ts &

flow

ers

, pe

at,

pla

stic

po

ts, p

ea

t, etc

.p

rod

ucts

an

d/o

r recycle

s a

ll wa

ste

etc

.

Vis

its +

30

0 tim

es p

er y

ea

rR

eg

ula

r vis

itor, s

ay 1

50

time

s e

ach

ye

ar

GR

IEV

ING

RO

AD

MIL

ES

Infre

qu

en

t vis

its, s

ay 6

time

sN

o s

ub

se

qu

en

t vis

its to

site

or a

lwa

ys

ea

ch

ye

ar

wa

lks to

site

Inte

nsiv

e m

ow

ing

an

d h

igh

Le

ss in

ten

siv

e w

ith s

om

e c

on

se

rva

tion

SIT

E M

AN

AG

EM

EN

TS

om

e c

on

se

rva

tion

, tree

Site

ma

na

ge

d u

nd

er e

co

log

ica

lle

ve

l of h

ortic

ultu

ral

& n

ativ

e p

lan

ting

, etc

.p

lan

ting

an

d lim

ited

inte

nsiv

em

an

ag

em

en

t pla

n, n

o c

hip

bo

ard

/md

fo

pe

ratio

ns, b

ed

din

g, n

om

ow

ing

or e

mb

alm

ing

ch

em

ica

ls, o

r he

rbic

ide

s e

tc

co

nse

rva

tion

are

as

Asse

ssing

the E

nviro

nm

en

tal Im

pact o

f a F

un

era

l