Friday, April 18, 2008

Eco-Friendly Funerals

The Wisconsin State Journal has a story on green funerals.

When people ask Dave Drapac about his plans for a cemetery where people can be buried without chemicals or even a coffin, their responses tend more toward "cool" than "yuck."

People have said "I love the idea that I can be composted," said Drapac, president of the Trust for Natural Legacies, which works to preserve and restore natural areas throughout the Midwest. The group is one of two here looking to establish a "green" graveyard.

"You can pretend that your body's going to be nice and preserved if embalmed and air tight," he said. But that's not the case. "It's not a pretty picture any way you choose."

It's an idea that's catching on. Circle Cemetery, an arm of Circle Sanctuary near Barneveld, is seeking to expand its existing one-acre cremains-only cemetery to 20 acres to include natural burials.

Next month, Forest Home Cemetery in Milwaukee will set aside three of its 200 acres for green burial sites -- possibly the first cemetery in the state to do so. About eight green cemeteries, including some where only a portion are green, have been established in the nation in the last 10 years, Drapac said.

...Locating a loved one's grave in a green cemetery may take a bit more work, however. Because there won't be any headstones, visitors to the green portion of Milwaukee's Forest Home Cemetery will be given GPS devices to find the sites, Kursel said.

Large boulders will be placed on the property on which peoples' names and dates will be inscribed, he said.

Drapac also envisions a more natural marker for any future conservation cemetery his group establishes.

"A lot of people like the idea of a living marker like a tree (or) perennial flower," he said.

Traditional funeral services, including a viewing, can still be incorporated into green burials even though the body wouldn't be embalmed.

If the body needs to be viewed a week after the death, it can be preserved through refrigeration or dry ice, Drapac said.

I don't like the idea of no headstones.

GPS devices? Give me a break.

A grave is meant to be marked. Trees and flowers are nice, but as more would be planted in a cemetery, it would be confusing. It would be difficult to distinguish the right oak tree, for example. Would there be name tags? Also, trees and flowers don't last. They can be damaged by storms. They can become sick. They die, too. A grave site is sacred ground and serves as a permanent memorial.

I don't know about the dry ice preservation idea, either.

Do traditional funeral and burial methods really pose a serious threat to the environment?

I'm fine with people choosing so-called "eco-friendly" funerals. One's final wishes are one's final wishes.

Personally, I wouldn't want to rely on a GPS device to find a loved one's grave.

2 comments:

HeatherRadish said...

I've heard reports of arsenic from embalming leaching into groundwater, but arsenic hasn't been used for embalming in decades.

Anyway, as you noted, people wanting to be dumped in a field to rot forgotten isn't really the problem; the problem is when those people decide the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to purchase a lot and erect the biggest granite monument we can afford. I give it ten years.

Mary said...

The process will probably be a slippery slope. First no cement vaults, then regulations on biodegradable caskets -- stuff that people would be less likely to resist.

The extremists in the green movement would probably like to control burials and apply restrictions on everyone right now if they could.