| Dear
EarthTalk: I’ve heard that increasing
eco-awareness around the world has now extended itself to
the afterlife, whereby burials can even be “green.”
Is that true?
-- Mary Lewis, Duxbury, MA
| |
Each
year American funerals consume 30 million board feet
of casket wood, 90,000 tons of steel, 1.6 million
tons of concrete for burial vaults, 800,000 gallons
of embalming fluid, and thousands of acres of land.
© Getty Images |
Modern
western-world burial practices are arguably absurd, all
things considered: We pack our dearly departed with synthetic
preservatives and encase them in impenetrable coffins meant
to defy the natural forces of decomposition that have been
turning ashes to ashes and dust to dust for eons. And in
the process we give over thousands of acres of land every
year to new cemetery grounds from coast to coast.
According
to National Geographic, American funerals are responsible
each year for the felling of 30 million board feet of casket
wood (some of which comes from tropical hardwoods), 90,000
tons of steel, 1.6 million tons of concrete for burial vaults,
and 800,000 gallons of embalming fluid. Even cremation is
an environmental horror story, with the incineration process
emitting many a noxious substance, including dioxin, hydrochloric
acid, sulfur dioxide, and climate-changing carbon dioxide.
But
increasing demand for more natural burial practices has
spawned changes in the industry, and dozens of funeral homes
and cemeteries across the country have started to adopt
greener ways of operating. Many of these providers are members
of the non-profit Green Burial Council, which works “to
make burial sustainable for the planet, meaningful for the
families, and economically viable for the provider.”
The
organization partners with land trusts, park service agencies
and the funeral profession to help consumers get the greenest
burial experience possible. Its network of approved providers
is committed to reducing the industry’s toxins, waste
and carbon emissions. Many of the group’s member cemeteries—you
can find a directory on the Green Burial Council’s
website—offer clients the option of burying loved
ones in more natural landscapes uncluttered by headstones
and mausoleums. In place of a traditional headstone, for
example, a tree might be planted over the grave.
And
instead of conventional wood and steel coffins, clients
can bury loved ones in more biodegradable wicker or cardboard,
or in a casket made of wood certified as sustainably harvested
by the nonprofit Forest Stewardship Council. Advocates of
such greener burials say that people take comfort in knowing
their bodies will decompose and become part of the cycle
of nature.
Likewise,
dry ice is becoming a popular, non-toxic alternative to
embalming. According to Greensprings Natural Cemetery in
Newfield, New York, “No state in the U.S. requires
embalming, though some may require it if burial doesn’t
take place within a set amount of time—usually 24
or 48 hours.”
Even
the practice of scattering ashes at sea has a new wrinkle.
Florida-based Great Burial Reef will place urns with cremated
remains within 100 percent natural, PH-balanced concrete
artificial reefs placed at the bottom of the ocean. And
Georgia-based Eternal Reefs will mix your ashes with the
cement they use to create “reef balls”—hollow
spheres that resemble giant Wiffle balls that are sunk offshore.
Loved ones equipped with the GPS coordinates can boat or
even dive to visit the site of the remains.
CONTACTS:
Green
Burial Council; Forest
Stewardship Council; Greensprings
Natural Cemetery; Great
Burial Reef; Eternal
Reefs.
Dear
EarthTalk: What’s the deal nowadays with
aerosol spray cans? I thought that the ozone-depleting chemicals
used in them were eliminated back in the 1970s. Is this
true? If so, what is now used as a propellant? Are aerosols
still bad for the ozone layer?
-- Sheila, Abilene, TX
| |
Modern-day
aerosol sprays no longer deplete the ozone layer,
but they still contain hydrocarbons and/or compressed
gases notorious for their contribution to global warming,
and they also emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
that contribute to ground-level ozone levels, a key
component of asthma-inducing smog.
© Getty Images |
The aerosol spray
can has a storied history in the United States. First invented
in the 1920s by U.S. Department of Agriculture scientists
to pressurize insect spray, American soldiers eventually
used the technology to help ward off Malaria in the South
Pacific during World War II. The aerosol spray cans today,
while much smaller and more refined, are direct descendents
of those original military grade clunkers. Use of the cans
for consumer applications took off during the ensuing decades,
until the mid-1970s when ozone depletion first came to the
public’s attention.
As a result,
consumer aerosol products made in the U.S. have not contained
ozone-depleting chemicals—also known as chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs)—since the late 1970s, first because companies
voluntary eliminated them, and later because of federal
regulations. Clean Air Act and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regulations further restricted the use of CFCs
for non-consumer products. All consumer and most other aerosol
products made or sold in the U.S. now use propellants—such
as hydrocarbons and compressed gases like nitrous oxide—that
do not deplete the ozone layer. Aerosol spray cans produced
in some other countries might still utilize CFCs, but they
cannot legally be sold in the U.S.
According to
the industry trade group, the National Aerosol Association,
aerosol manufacturers in Europe and other parts of the world
initially did not follow the lead of U.S. industry in substituting
alternative propellants for CFCs. “The fact that aerosols
made in underdeveloped countries may contain CFCs has caused
confusion in press reports and in the public mind about
the stratospheric ozone/aerosol link,” reports the
group. Other countries have also switched out ozone-depleting
propellants with non-depleting forms because they signed
1987’s Montreal Protocol, a landmark international
agreement signed by 191 countries with the goal of phasing
out the production and use of CFCs and other ozone depleting
chemicals. Scientists report that that the phase out of
the chemicals is now about 90 percent complete.
Of course, just
because those deodorant sprays and shaving cream cans aren’t
depleting the ozone layer doesn’t mean they are actually
good for the environment. They still contain hydrocarbons
and/or compressed gases notorious for their contribution
to global warming. Every time you hit the button, then,
you are raising your carbon footprint, albeit ever so slightly.
Modern-day, CFC-free
aerosol sprays also emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
that contribute to ground-level ozone levels, a key component
of asthma-inducing smog. The state of California is now
regulating consumer products that contain VOCs—and
aerosol sprays are not the only targets: Fingernail polish,
perfumes, mouthwashes, pump hair sprays, and roll-on and
stick deodorants also emit them.
CONTACTS:
National
Aerosol Association. |
A
SYNDICATED COLUMN ONLY ON AMERICAJR.COM
|
