Which is the more environmentally friendly option: Cremation or Burial?

Question

By burial I refer not to anything elaborate but more so to being dumped coffin-less into the ground and have dirt thrown on you?

It seems to me that all cremation would result in would be that you would be turned into pollution (combustion of carbon, for one thing) and allergen causing particles. Burial, on the other hand, would give bacteria, worms, and fungi a chance to thrive as well as promote the life of a tree or something.

So which is the more environmentally friendly, a "paupers burial", or cremation?

I already think of myself as future compost due to my materialistic point of view, so I have no problem with that.

In regards to space, are there not millions of acres of forest out there? Could a clearing not be found, a hole dug, and me thrown in it? the hole filled, what would be the difference? Grass would probably regrow given the wonderful new manure that it has just received?

Answer 1

In that sense I would agree, burial would be more environmentally friendly. Could make some great compost out of human bodies. However, I don't think most people would like to think of themselves as compost..... I was thinking about being cremated, but maybe I will just be composted instead.

*edit* Regular burial (with a coffin, embalming, etc) would probably be more detrimental to the environment.

**edit to your edit** You don't even need a hole. Not sure the spiritual reasoning for the hole.. Burial/leaving flowers were probably just for sanitary/smell reasons at first and continued as tradition.

Answer 2

Dumping a body in the ground without a coffin and a vault (another layer of encasing) is not an option in most places. The bugs and worms don't really have a chance. The way we bury people now is somewhat sterile and resists these natural processes. Doubly so if the body is embalmed. So the question is what impact all crematorium has versus the use of space in a graveyard. Hmmm. It depends on your environmental priorities. A huge graveyard near my place (>> 100,000 graves) is the biggest green open space around and makes it possible for a lot of animals to live in the area. If it were not a graveyard, it would almost certainly be filled with ugly, prefab houses. It's also a gentle reminder to all who live in the area of the fragility of life. Something that might have a very positive environmental impact. I doubt crematoria are huge contributors of air pollutants on a percentage basis, but if it's in your neighborhood, it would start to matter. Then there is the cost. A cheap burial is a lot more than a cheap cremation. That money could be mean the difference between someone buying an SUV over a prius, or it could be used for buying a prius to replace the old junker polluter. Hmmm. I think I will vote for burial, but I would like to see some more sophisticated analysis.

Answer 3

I really had no intentions of answering this question, just observing, but now I must clear up some discrepancies. First of all, cremation is terrible for the environment. It releases large amounts of chemicals and toxins into the air (even though they are closely regulated by the EPA). Burial, too, has it's downfalls but is an overall better option.
Now, there were some answers that stated the CDC required cremation for anyone who dies of something contagious?! Um, no. Nearly everyone dies of something contagious. Andno, they are not cremated. The CDC has no idea what people die from, nor do they care, not to mention any information like that is protected by the HIPAA Prvacy Act. And a definite no to the comment that even poor people are buried in airtight containers? Absolutely not true. Most of the poor people cannot afford the airtight caskets and/or vaults. 90% of poor people are buried in non-sealing caskets and vaults.

Answer 4

It is generally thought that cremation is more environmentally responsible than traditional burial, since the latter uses all kinds of toxic substances to embalm the body, as well as in the manufacturing of the casket, which is often lined with heavy metals and finished with harsh resins. Additionally, gravesites are deep, concrete-lined vaults, the creation of which is not a low-impact endeavor. While vast cemetaries full of concrete and stone memorials do have a certain haunting beauty, there are alternative guises for a cemetary that do greater service to the land, and can be a more pleasant place for visitors to come memorialize the dead. The green burial movement began in the UK, where there are now numerous eco-cemeteries full of trees rather than headstones. In the US, land restoration projects such as Fernwood use natural burial as a means of restoring native species to large areas of land.

Answer 5

Your question is making me rethink choosing cremation!

If it was a viable choice, I would chose a simple non-casket burial as you are suggesting. I even have the space for it on my own land with lots of woods. But, I suspect it is not legal. I may check into it though now that you have made me think about it.

Answer 6

Burial seems more environmentally friendly, but it is a health hazard. If you're talking about everyone being buried, the ground water would soon be undrinkable, and people, plants, and animals would die. I guess if we were all buried in mass graves and everyone got a plague from all the dead bodies in the ground and died, then the world wouldn't have us around to pollute it.

Answer 7

Probably burial. Unless you have metal implants you're 100% biodegradable.

Answer 8

burial. releases minerals back into environment and allows decomposers to feed on the dead matter.

Answer 9

I don't know.. I think being buried takes up a lot of space, and cremation does not.