Do you think that cremation is making global warming worse?

Question

to Libertanian-anarchis
I'm sorry you think my question ridiculous. It was a genuine question which I hoped would be answered clearly and without me being made to feel patronised.

Butt - thanks for making me laugh. I really appreciate it.

Answer 1

Strange as it may seem, this is something I looked into a while ago and unfortunately I can't recall the precise details off the top of my head but the answer in a word is no.

A human body has dozens of different chemicals in it and when cremated there's a very compex chemical reaction that takes place and this produces all manner of pollutants, some of which contribute to global warming.

Another factor to take into account is that the carbon locked in the human body is released back into the atmosphere and thirdly is the amount of gas that is burned during the cremation process.

Alternatively, if a body is interred, it still releases the trapped carbon but during the biological breakdown a substantial quantity of methane gas is produced (the process is called methanogenesis or biomethanation).

Methane is a more potent gas than carbon dioixide and each unit of methane causes the same amount of warming as 23 units of CO2 (more specifically the 100 year GWP of methane is 23).

The release of methane + carbon during biological decomposition adds up to a greater contribution to global warming than the release of greenhouse gases + carbon during cremation.

This answer looks only at the effects in relation to global warming. Cremation prduces chemicals and pollutants which are harmful to humans and the environment that aren't released if a body is buried.

All things considered, there is no distinct advantage to either cremation or burial.

Answer 2

I think this question is a good example of how global warming can be taken to ridiculous extremes. What next? Banning beans or sauerkraut?

The net carbon footprint of the actual act of cremation versus burial is debatable and varies. The oxidation of your body occurs whether or not you choose to let it decompose quickly or accelerate it with cremation. There are added fuels used in cremation, but cremations have less energy use depending on what is done with the ashes after cremation. If they are buried in a cemetery, there is no benefit. if they are scattered to the winds, there is a significant benefit. No gas guzzling trip to the cemetery by a procession of vehicles, no subsequent visits to the cemetery for many years after.

I believe traditional burials are a very selfish act. They occupy space that could be used by the living in a productive manner. Cremation followed by scattering of ashes is the green way to go.

Answer 3

cremation is like burning leaves in the backyard but the only difference is we burn flesh and other stuffs in the process. The cremation process produces harmful gases like nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. Cremation really adds up to the problem of global warming - on a small scale - but if you consider people doing cremation around the world it really makes a difference in the long run.

Answer 4

How about the place where you bury a human being plant a tree on top rather than putting a dumb stone on it ? That may make burial more efficient. It just takes up lots of vital ground space.

Answer 5

probably yes, but the sad fact is more and more people are choosing that option nowadays,
to prevent global warming i think they did too little too late.
sorry but we all have to go sometime.

p.s your question doesnt sound ridiculous at all.
c ya have a nice day.
annie b.

Answer 6

prob is adding to prob, but no worse that the rockets they send up or the firerworks that go of every year

Answer 7

No idea but it's pretty tough if there's no space in church yards to bury people!!

Answer 8

Yes i do my dear.Far to many spirits in the sky.