Critique of “green burial standards”
December 16, 2009
The Green Burial Council has set itself up as a watchdog to ensure that burial becomes “more sustainable, economically viable, and meaningful” in North America. We applaud such an effort - our Mother Earth can only benefit from any help. And burial is no insignificant environmental factor when the earth’s massive population and consequent burial needs are considered.
We reviewed their environmental standards for burials and find them excellent … as far as environmental factors are concerned. However, as a new initiative, we should not expect its aims or ideas to be perfect from Day 1. In fact, we find that in certain aspects green burial favors environmental aspects at the expense of human ones. Following their standards will certainly make burial “more sustainable and economically viable” as they hope - but not necessarily more meaningful for human beings.
Burial - human needs vs environmental ones
Human meaning is not at all irrelevent, for burial and death rituals have been a cultural and spiritual cornerstone of humanity, perhaps the most important, ever since Man understood that he was mortal. The environmental factor in burial on the other hand is a modern phenomena - starting with Napoleon’s removal of the Parisian cemeteries to the catacombs under the city. We should remember this relation - for if we disregard what has always been of importance to humanity exclusively to benefit a temporary (albeit acute) environmental factor, we do so at our own cultural, psychological and spiritual risk.
Now I am not suggesting the Green Burial Council excludes the human factor altogether. They certainly understand that a conflict between man and environment, nature and culture is natural and unavoidable. And that nothing is black and white, that compromises are inescapable - one simply cannot have it all. But in their compromise between nature and culture, the Green Burial Council has clearly chosen to err on the side of the environment. That is their perogative - but it necessarily entails compromises for humanity, for the cultural and spiritual aspects of burial.
In fact, the environmental factors in a burial are far easier to understand and change than the cultural and spiritual ones - we must return to what mankind did until very recently. (In fact, even that is no longer so simple - today’s population size does complicate matters. But the green burial movement as a whole does not address this more global issue - see Green Burial’s Shortcomings ).
The shortcomings in human terms of modern burial practices take more creativity and sensitivity to overcome: creating attractive, meaningful new ways of memorializing; discovering new mechanisms to guarantee grave perpetuity in an overpopulated and ever-changing world; finding acceptable new aesthetics to replace the gloomy old Victorian one we have inherited.
Freedom of expression in memorials
Returning to the Green Burial Council’s Standards, we find nothing specific to take issue with at the lower two levels, which essentially aim to eliminate ground pollutants (concrete, formaldehyde, pesticides etc) and conserve energy. It is at the third level of standards (the second-most stringent) that we cannot agree with them - at this point the nature/culture conflict emerges in the question of memorialization, an archetypal human need with no possible environmental benefits.
Here we see that a “natural burial ground” must:
- “Develop a plan for limiting the types, sizes, and visibility of memorial markers/features to preserve or restore naturalistic vistas in the cemetery landscape and (where appropriate) to landmarks outside its borders.”
- “Develop a plan for dealing with unauthorized grave decoration and landscaping.”
Certainly enduring monuments and personal grave decorations will interfere with the natural aesthetics of a site - but should we be limiting the last freedom of expression left to human beings, the one that will represent them long after all other reminders of their existence have melted away? I can’t accept this personally and I suspect that a majority of society will feel the same way, if they reflect on it. This will self-limit the popularity of green burial.
In regard to freedom of expression in memorials, I believe the Perpetua’s Garden concept offers a far better compromise between nature’s needs and humanity’s.
Grave perpetuity
In the past, the perpetuity of a grave site, the eternal “Rest-in-Peace”, was considered a sacred right, perhaps the most important consideration of all in a grave. That has long since disappeared in the modern world, with whole cemeteries turned into parking lots, golf courses and shopping centers. And unless a radical new solution is found (Perpetua’s Garden?), the future can only be even darker in this respect.
But instead of addressing this grave cultural deficiency, the Green Burial Council first addresses perpetuity in their last (and least accessible) level, the “conservation burial ground”. Here their highest goal becomes transparent - the perpetual protection of the land, not the grave sites:
- Conservation Burial Grounds, in addition to meeting all the requirements for a Natural Burial Ground, must further legitimate land conservation
- A Conservation Burial Ground must protect in perpetuity an area of land specifically and exclusively designated for conservation.
- A conservation burial ground must involve an established conservation organization that holds a conservation easement or has in place a deed restriction guaranteeing long-term stewardship.
Perpetuity is nowhere expressed as a benefit to humanity and the dead who can rest in perpetuity, but only in terms of the perpetual stewardship of the land. And the perpetual stewardship of the land does not necessarily imply the perpetuity of the grave sites - indeed, there is no mention anywhere of the perpetuity of the individual graves. According to their phraseology, it is only the “land-as-nature” that will be conserved, not the “land-as-cemetery” and not the individual graves. One wonders if this last point has even been thought of…? Or does the Green Burial Council anticipate grave recycling in the European model? This would be a very bad compromise - but we don’t know, this question is not mentioned on their site.
Conclusion
We agree that the elimination of ground pollutants and the conservation of energy in burials are important goals and we wish the Green Burial all the success in the world here. And though we are skeptical about the long-term effectivness of it, we also love the idea that nature can be conserved because our bodies protect it from redevelopment. But if the human questions of memorials and grave perpetuity are not better addressed, then we suggest the Green Burial Council stick simply to their pollution-reduction goals and let others address the human questions.
Comments
9 Responses to “Critique of “green burial standards””
Got something to say?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great site…But you have a few things wrong when you discuss green burial in the US.
I developed most of the standards…
The whole idea behind Memorial Ecosystems is and was creating long term, transgenerational human links to a specific tract of land. The idea is that we develop very dense histories of the land: the life stories of those buried there and the story of the land itself. Bill Jordan has an excellent if difficult book on linking human ritual to landscape restoration-The Sunflower Forest.
The issue of grave “decoration” is difficult. You might want to read my old newsletters about that-and the potential for natural art that is ecologically functional….The whole idea here is humans-in-nature, and creating human-natural landscape interactions that develop closer ties between human and natural communities.
And it is not only giving easements to outside entities. It is also creating enforceable deed restrictions in the contracts, etc.
Believe me, our ceremonies are very individualized. We also believe in infrastructure-like saving a local historic chapel that we moved to the site. Please visit our site and look around.
Thanks Billy! An honor to have the founder himself of the American conservation burial movement comment.
I like what you’re saying about linking culture with nature, humanity with the land. And I’m also convinced that cemeteries are the most profound expression of this connection. “The earth is basically a grave into which the epochs sink and rise up from”. EJ
But I’m still not convinced that the green burial movement in general is promoting this linking as well as it could - primarily because the human connections made with the landscape have to take a distinctly human, tangible and lasting form.
If they disappear too quickly into the humus with the leaves and other parts of the natural cycle, or if they are indistinguishable from these purely natural components, then the human aspect becomes merely another part of the natural cycle.
And my point is that humanity is not ONLY a part of nature. Culture and spirituality and human individuality certainly take place in the context of nature, but their uniqueness is also in their being different from nature.
In short, memorials have to be distinctly human and have to last. How that is done without “degrading the landscape” is a very subjective matter - what is to be considered a polluter of the landscape? Formaldehyde and concrete certainly - mainly because they are dispensable.
But marble and granite are natural stones - and memorials, unlike pollutants, are not dispensable aspects of a cemetery.
Sure, if the cemetery becomes a stone jungle, then nature has been pushed too far out. But if stone monuments are not allowed at all, then culture has been eliminated.
I’ll look for the Bill Jordan book, thanks for the tip!
And I’d like to read the newsletters you mention - can you include a link here, for my benefit and that of other visitors?
Cheers,
Thomas
I think we are closer in terms of our ideas than you might think. I think that alienation from nature and natural process is a crisis for our civilization-spiritually and materially (forgive my spelling, btw, I am doing this on the fly..I will send a more thought out reply later).
My thinking has evolved but here is the very well hidden link (it took ME a while to find it):
http://www.memorialecosystems.com/News/tabid/70/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3/Old-Newsletter-Articles-volume-1.aspx
Keep in mind that the oldest article is from 1988-the first time I published anything on the idea, and my thoughts now are more developed. The article on ritual is in part derivative of a lot of stuff being written in Restoration and Management Notes (now Restoration Ecology), and included some of Bill’s thoughts.
I realize that my essay on markers is not here, but in a publication by the late Nicholas Aubry who founded the Natural Death Care Centre (Last Aid). I will try to find that article..In it I took issue with the NDCC’s critique of MEI allowing stones. In that response, I made the case for ecologicaly functional art, and included my favorite example: hydroglyphs (http://www.image-world.net/eco-art/gallery/prints/html/hydroglyphs)
Late for clinic….
The journal is now Ecological Restoration, not Restoration Ecology, BTW.
In case I do not have time to run it down, this is the point I made to Nicholas when he objected to our allowing natural stone markers (he said something to the effect that “natural markers like trees are the very essence of the idea of natural burial”):
1) the idea is to protect land by connecting humans communities and natural communities.
2) we did market research that showed a significant portion of the public would never get their heads around not having a physical marker-from a purely utilitarian perspective, this meant that we would have less income to protect and restore land.
3) At least in the southern appalachians, stones on the forest floor have a significant ecological role (I gave sources) both for hydrology and as habitat for keystone species (in this case ants-who distribute about 80-90% of forest floor forbs, etc.). It was possible, it seemed, to create memorials that were ecologically functional.
4) Total separation of “wild and natural” from “human” is an artifice in and of itself-more simulation and simulacra than reality.
I raised the question of why a wilderness hiker in Australia who came upon Dream Time art or in the American Southwest who came upon Hohokam petroglyphs would find the experience centering, mystic and wonderful, but we rule out the possibility of modern cultures creating culture/nature integrating art. Anyway, will try to find a copy. My original went down with one of my earlier computers, but maybe NDCC has an online version of that edition of Last Aid.
sorry this is a bit disjointed, I am doing it between patients
for what it is worth, I do not agree that specific stone types are indespensible…..and think that we will need spaces for those that reject any form of non-organic marker-as many at RCP have…Just as we do not force people (at RCP) to do without a marker, it would be wrong to require it (IMHO). I can imagine projects without any individual stone markers……and would readily work with such projects (we are in fact helping a group in Florida where they have no natural suitable stone). We have a low tech solution involving a limited number of fixed, durable reference points that we have been using at RCP for going on 12 years now.
You’ve given me lots of food for thought, Billy. And I agree with almost everything you say - as you say, we are much closer than I thought.
In the “Funeral rituals” article you linked to, you say something I have also argued since founding Perpetua’s Garden:
“If it is a fair criticism that current funeral practices are related to the denial of death, it is also true that extreme minimalist approaches can be denial-based.”
The paradox is that I have argued this regarding some strains of green burial!
My argument is that the desire to exclude any visible signs of death (ie lasting memorials) in a green burial site may - in certain cases - derive not from a conscious desire to preserve the naturalistic look of a site but from a subconscious defeatist/nihilistic denial of death. The mentality is “Death sucks - so if we can dispose of a body without leaving any trace of it, then we can more easily forget this unsolvable problem of dying - out of sight, out of mind.” But this happens subconsciously, while the person thinks they are motivated by the desire for the pleasant landscape.
A green burial without memorials lends itself ideally to this type of denial, since it simultaneously gives the GENUINE benefit of feeling and being closer to the natural world. By providing this genuine benefit of reconnecting man with nature, it even surpasses the most popular form of death-denial-through-disappearance - scattering of ashes without memorials.
So on the one hand, green burial provides a genuine service to humanity by helping re-integrate us psychologically and ecologically with nature, and on the other hand it can potentially promote death-denial, which in my opinion is the most psychologically-damaging of all modern sicknesses.
If genuine forms of memorialization could be made available in green burials, then the result would only be positive.
Note I say “made available” - I don’t at all believe stone memorials or any memorials should be compulsory. But they should be available to those who want them - even if the environmental consequences are less than ideal.
Death is the most important thing that happens to a person after being born. We should therefore hold people’s personal wishes regarding their death as sacred - almost without limitation. If they want embalming, or scattering, or resomation, or a pretentious marble mausoleum, a gold-plated casket, they should be able to find that option - not necessarily in your conservation burial ground, but somewhere.
The biggest problem is that most people don’t consciously know what they want - they are victims of socialization and the marketing machine that is its greatest modern tool. But if the marketing could be changed - or alternative marketing could be added to the existent stuff - so that new, more ecologically and humanly beneficial options become known and available to the public, many will probably freely choose these more beneficial forms.
In the end, I believe that the main difference between your concept and mine is that I am obsessed with the idea that there are 7 billion of us in this world and that a solution should cater to as many of them as possible, not just to a small enlightened minority, like sustainable/organic agriculture does presently.
I don’t believe that green burial as currently conceived by yourself and the Green Burial Council, the Woodland burial movement in the UK etc can cater to these numbers. “Catering” to these people means providing them with what THEY want, not what we think is best for them and for the earth.
But if we can find a solution that is also beneficial to the earth, that will be much much better! I think the Perpetua’s Garden Principle, or some development of it, is a potential answer.
Actually, it has a lot in common with what I understand of your own thinking. We should work together somehow….
Thomas
If the big deal is memory (people and landscape), then we need to think about technology-both low and high-in the mix…I have thought about deep-time archiving and what that means. Irish monastery stuff. not just bullet proof, but apocalypse proof. Redundancy, stored paper, electronic media, and hard-scape signifiers. We proposed life history archives, which many companies are now doing….but DEEP archiving will cost money…..and we think we need to go there.
new requirement: require offsite storage of eco and anthro info
You phrase it differently than I would with “deep-time archiving”, but that wording also gets to one of the intentions of Perpetua’s Garden. Hence its name Perpetua - I don’t intend this merely as a nicely marketable name but as really expressing the timelessness of such a site.
But we differ in the extent of the archived memories being considered. I am thinking in a simple and old-fashioned manner of names, dates, portraits and some personal details about individuals, epitaphs etc. But not necessarily whole life-stories, family videos, and so on. That becomes unrealistic considering the numbers of people involved. And the preservation of hi-tech media long-term is much more complicated, maybe quite unrealistic.
Anyway, Google and company are already taking care of that - whether their archives are “apocalypse-proof” in your terms is beyond my knowledge or interest.
It is rather the idea of creating sites where a certain basic amount of information is preserved truly ad perpetuum that appeals to me. And in this respect, I think in low-tech terms: stone, bronze, protective underground location, etc. I also don’t think in terms of separating the storage into on- and off-site locations. One site suffices for the burial and the bacic level of lo-tech archiving that is required for my conception.
There are certain existing sites on earth that are eminently suited to this purpose - and they as “apocalypse-proof” as anything on earth can be.
Thomas Friese