The Science Behind 'Green' Burials Is Lacking

Eco-friendly burials are becoming more popular, pitched as far greener alternatives to traditional methods. Not so fast, write Hannah Gould and Georgina Robinson at Aeon. Their deep dive into the subject finds that the evidence behind such claims is surprisingly thin. From natural woodland burials and alkaline hydrolysis ("water cremation") to human composting and pods that transform into trees, these practices promise a poetic return to nature: bodies that nourish forests, transform into rich soil, or feed microbial life. Proponents paint these options as ethically compelling and spiritually consoling, reframing death not as pollution but as a contribution to ecological life cycles.

But when you dig into the data, much of it just isn't there. Several high-profile concepts, like the celebrated Capsula Mundi burial pod and body "cryomation," remain either technically unproven or unavailable at scale. Many firms publish bold statistics—claims of being far more sustainable than cremation or reversing a person's entire carbon footprint—without releasing underlying calculations or independent studies. Regulators haven't kept up, giving families little help to verify what's truly greener when all the costs are tallied. The story also notes that green burials don't help with the eco-cost of funeral rituals, including travel, flowers, etc.

Ethicists and death scholars argue that real environmental gains will come less from boutique technologies than from sector-wide changes: cleaner energy for crematoria, emissions controls, different materials for coffins and headstones, and better regulation. Until then, "green" funerals may offer meaningful stories about our place in nature—but when sold as climate solutions, they raise the risk of what the authors call "greenwashing." Read the full story.