Is that true: Scientist says cremation contributes to global warming?

Question

Read that yahoo headline:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070418/lf_afp/lifestylewarmingdeath_070418143046

and explain why it is right or wrong.

Answer 1

Technically it is correct.

Every living thing contains carbon, and when it dies, it has to somehow release that carbon as it decays. This is why they tell you to buy wood furniture: as long as you have that furniture, the carbon in the wood is "captured" and won't add to carbon dioxide in the air. Thus the idea of burying a person underneath a tree is simply that the tree will make use of the carbon that formally made up your body and prevent it from being released into the air.

However, I think this scientist is taking things a little far. How people are buried/cremated/whatever after they die is usually a matter of spiritual belief, and if there is one decision a person gets to make in life, it should be how their remains are taken care of.

Answer 2

The headline is correct in so much as cremation contributes to global warming but the editorial is somewhat misleading and lacking in content.

When a human body or any other living organism dies it decomposes and through a process known as methanogenesis it produces methane.

Methane is a far more effective greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide - 296 times more effective (the 100 year GWP of CH4 is 296).

When a body is cremated the carbon content reacts with oxygen in the air to produce carbon dioxide. There's a whole range of other chemicals and compounds in the body and cremation causes a whole host of chemical reactions.

The CO2 given off by a body being cremated will be far less damaging than the methane produced when a body decomposes naturally.

However, the cremation process itself uses a lot of gas to create hot enough temperatures for total combustion to take place. Add this to the CO2 produced from burning the body and there will be substantial qualtities of CO2 produced.

In total there will be much more CO2 from cremation than methane from burial but I doubt there will be sufficient quantities to account for the more damaging effect of methane.

Answer 3

As bad as this may sound, it's no different than burning garbage. Anything that burns gives off some form of carbon and other chemicals. In addition, burning items have already converted those chemicals into a gaseous or particulate form and sends concentrated amounts of those chemicals into the air. If a body is left to decay naturally, gaseous emissions are contained and the circle of life will distribute the rest evenly. You'll also feed a few animal and plant life forms while you decompose.

Answer 4

Think about this way - when you die you are going to emit CO2 whether you like it or not. If you do it in a crematorium that CO2 is being released rapidly into the air. The CO2 from the heat source is also being released - this would not have been released if your were not being cremated. The benefit to being buried in a forest in a cardboard box is that you do not create extra CO2 inherent in the burning process of cremation and the natural CO2 you are emitting gets asborbed by the roots of the trees and plants above you, slowly and naturally. So I do think that cremation has to stop and we bury our dead they way they used to be buried before the multi-billion dollar funeral industry started to capitalize on death.

Answer 5

It is absurd. When you decompose you will also contribute to CO2 by that logic. It is beyond asinine. The amount of CO2 being released by humans is eliminated when they die so they ought to be happy. That will be the next thing that these silly headed environmental Nazis will call for.

Answer 6

Well, it produces a lot of CO2. Whether that helps heat the globe is a pretty big debate.

Answer 7

i think having Hell nearby is much more harmfull
we should get rid of that

Answer 8

i'm not sure
but if you care about the environment then visit my question
click on my avatar then click on my recent questions and click on HELP THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!!