2007-06-27 01:32:07 · 7 answers · asked by Necromancer 3 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Good Question! Someting that I did not think about until now! Something that I will deffinately reconsider. The reason that I wanted to be cremated was because it is illegal to be buried in the ground to decompose naturally! It does'nt seem natural to be filled with embalming fluids and put into the ground! Sorry that I don't have an answer, but thanks for bringing it up!
2007-06-27 01:44:49 · answer #1 · answered by gypsyrose8375 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
With respect to global warming only then cremation is a lesser contributor than burial. Here's why...
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 there's no advantage to either cremation or burial.
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.
All things considered (not just global warming), there is no distinct advantage to either cremation or burial.
2007-06-27 09:03:34 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Cremation is popular because it is cheaper for you to be disposed of than burial in the ground or at sea and easier for those attending the funeral particular if weather is unpleasant. With cremation the curtain just gets drawn and in you go and that is that, instead of everybody having to stand over the grave bored to tears while the remains of you are humped and then dumped in the hole. Anyway landfill areas are getting more and more precious as if you try to build homes over people's graves nasty apparitions reputedly occur in those homes, so graveyards are dangerous. This apart if our lefty politicians start trying to legislate for us to be buried to reduce CO2 emissions when we are disposed of, the effect on global warming and climate change would be virtually negligible anyway, while China is building three new fossil fuelled power stations per week?
2007-06-27 11:41:57 · answer #3 · answered by cimex 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My son in law is an undertaker, from what he tells me it takes a lot of fuel; gas, oil or traditionally wood to burn the body including the bones. A lot of the body is water.
So you may have a point. Probably takes less energy to dig a hole. Human decomposition is no different than any other natural decay.
As for popular, I'm not actually looking forward to either with glee.
There is of course no good reason for any consenting adult to continue to use CO2. There are a myriad of ways they could end it. Castor Oil beans is a good one. It grows as a weed everywhere. The seed shell contains ricin one of the most potent poisons about. Half a dozen will do nicely. Best to shell the seeds and eat only their shell. Castor oil seeds can give you the runs. That would combine well with a green funeral.
2007-06-27 10:25:30 · answer #4 · answered by Gary K 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You have a point there. But decomposing bodies will likely put more gases into the air than burning them. I don't know if they have to have controlled emission at the crematoria.
The amount of space graveyards take up, though, is a bigger issue. With space in many countries at a premium, eventually half the country will be graveyards unless the use catacombs again. We already have good farm and nature recreational land taken up by landfill, golf courses, and developments.
2007-06-27 09:05:30 · answer #5 · answered by henry d 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Cremation saves land, but the downside is it heavily pollutes us with mercury from peoples fillings which are 50 pc mercury.
2007-06-27 10:14:18 · answer #6 · answered by Joyce J 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
FOR JOE AND GYPSIE ROSE
See alternative to cremation...GREEN BURIALS
2007-06-27 09:26:22 · answer #7 · answered by tuckintee 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋