Is Alkaline Hydrolysis More Environmental Than Flame-Based Cremation or Burial?

Proponents of alkaline hydrolysis point to its low ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT as one of its most attractive traits, and have marketed the technology as “green cremation” to highlight that claim. And the process does, in fact, use less energy than flame-based cremation and doesn’t emit any carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as flame cremation does. (According to some estimates, the total annual CO2 emissions from fire cremation in the U.S. is around 360,000 metric tons.) However, despite many claims to the contrary, there is little scientific evidence that either flame-based cremation, alkaline hydrolysis or natural burial is the more sustainable choice.

Take, for example, the process of alkaline hydrolysis. According to most sources in the industry, it has a 75% lower carbon footprint than flame-based cremation and offers the added benefit of avoiding the mercury emissions that occur when dental fillings are burned. However, according to Philip Olsen, an associate professor in the Department of Science, Technology and Society at Virginia Tech, the process of making the lye used in alkaline hydrolysis is extremely energy intensive, and, depending on the process used, may emit several hundred pounds of mercury into the atmosphere each year. And while alkaline hydrolysis requires no burial container, a body may be cremated in a plain cardboard container, the making of which has very little environmental impact at all. 

Arguably, both flame-based cremation and alkaline hydrolysis offer environmental benefits over the typical North American funeral, in which an embalmed body is buried in a hardwood or metal casket inside a concrete burial liner in a cemetery with manicured, carefully tended lawns. What’s more, urban and suburban areas across the globe are simply running out of room to bury the dead. However, without a side-by-side, scientific comparison of the two options, it’s impossible to make a definitive statement about which of the two is better for the environment. 

Sources 

“The environmental toll of cremating the dead.” National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/is-cremation-environmentally-friendly-heres-the-science 

“Philip R. Olson.” Virginia Tech. https://liberalarts.vt.edu/departments-and-schools/department-of-science-technology-and-society/faculty/philip-olson.html 

“Traditional burials are ruining the planet — here’s what we should do instead.” Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/traditional-burials-are-ruining-the-planet-2016-4