Recompose – is it the way forward?

Ken West discusses alternate methods of body disposal

As the global crisis worsens, the way we dispose of bodies remains an ongoing challenge. Over the past few decades, new processes have failed to become viable choices. Now, we have Recompose, amongst others, intending to compost bodies. All these processes promise, or promised, a reduction in fuel use and carbon when compared to gas cremation. Allied to them, we might also assume a reduction in air pollution.

My major quibble is that often these processes measure themselves against gas cremation figures but never disclose what these were and where they came from. Anybody involved with cremation will understand that a single cremation has a vastly higher consumption than if six cremations have taken place.

Where a crematorium utilises holding over and operates for a minimum 12 hour period, it displays far lower gas consumption figures as well as much reduced emissions. The Burial and Cremation Education Trust were way ahead in researching and promoting this approach even though it remains little used. Few crematoria are transparent on such issues, not least the private sector.

As for the release of carbon, this is 100% with cremation. This is why I devised natural burial in order to lock up the carbon in the body and coffin for an indefinite period. Without doubt, the most environmental course is to inter the body in the smallest grave possible, at the least depth.

I also think it essential to consider whether each method is a complete or partial process. For instance, when cremation began the body was burnt and that was it. The ashes had no legal status and were effectively discounted. We changed this over time and the actual cremation is now the first part and the disposal and memorialisation of the ashes the second. The ashes, we must remind ourselves, are quite small at around 5 – 6 pounds in weight. Yet, in our lifetime, this ash has filled our Gardens of Remembrance with an alien, toxic, substance. That is an environmental issue in itself. More recently, such ashes have been prohibited from scattering on mountains owned by the National Trust. Even such a small quantity slowly changes the ecology on the mountain top, and then inexorably creeps down the hillside.

I had this history in mind as I read the website for Recompose in the US. They offer a human composting process which takes 30 days. They lay the body in a metal cradle surrounded by wood chips, alfalfa and straw. More plant material is put over the body when the cradle is pushed into its container. They state that this process uses only 12% of the energy used for a conventional burial or cremation. However, no factual data on where those energy figures were obtained is given. Cremation apart, they are also measuring themselves against US burial and its reliance on carbon hungry concrete chambers. Burial directly in the earth is not typical in the US. To their credit they suggest Recompose as an urban solution and consider natural burial as a green option out in the countryside.

However, Recompose has the same problem as the other new proposals, that it is not a complete process. Unlike cremation, which usually ends with the cremated remains going into the Garden of Remembrance, the disposal of the ‘remains’ is not included. Having utilised Recompose, the applicant is the owner of one cubic yard of compost. The website simply records that this can be returned to the bereaved family or deposited on Bells Mountain, a protected natural wilderness.

The gardeners amongst you will know that this amount of compost is not to be taken lightly (note, that I use the Imperial measurements they quote). Google will tell you that this amount of compost weighs 1000 – 1600lbs and will cover an area 10’ square at 3” depth. Also, the website claims that they ‘gently transfer human remains into soil’. If they are creating soil rather than compost then this can be much heavier. Clearly, this can be placed in somebody’s garden but it has to be trucked, and then wheel barrowed to the spot. We can readily assume that the majority of urban people in the US will live in a condominium or not have a garden. So, their solution is to shift the compost to Bells Mountain.

I don’t know Bells Mountain. But, this image of trucks of compost being transported to a natural wilderness is hardly inspiring. The trucks have to be mechanically loaded, then unloaded and taken out into the wilderness using a dumper. All this work has a high carbon footprint. The soil compaction involved cannot be ideal in a natural

wilderness. Although no expert on soils, I am aware that nutrient rich compost is fine for growing vegetables in a garden. However, is it suitable on a mountain? Typically, the reason why such natural wildernesses still survive is because the poor soil did not attract any rapacious farmers. The flora and fauna of a natural wilderness is usually specific to a nutrient poor soil. A mass of compost will entirely change this ecology.

What I have not stated above is that Recompose claim the process will save one metric ton of carbon per body. That, of course, does not include the disposal of the compost, the missing part of the process. I cannot estimate how much carbon will be generated moving this bulk. This is the deceit implicit in such schemes, that they are not a complete process. Neither have I considered how much carbon will be released through oxidation when this compost is spread over the ground.

However, natural burial is a complete process. Moving a body, with an average weight of 190 pounds, is far more carbon efficient than moving compost weighing perhaps seven times more. I am also aware that the compost has to be cured. That must entail some time and would need extensive storage space in order to keep the material separately identified. Then, it requires blending and screening. This is all work requiring mechanical equipment and has a high carbon cost. They say the screening is to remove non-organics. It may well be that it is to remove any teeth or bone fragments that remain.

Transparency is also a problem. Recompose will not allow the process to be viewed. I think that is a severe weakness and I do hope they will change this. Far from being opposed to these new processes, I welcome them but only when valid data is given and the final disposition of the ‘remains’ is included.

Ken West

Have You Got Something Interesting to Share?

Are you involved with an innovative project?

Are you opening a new site or extending your existing site?

Have you introduced any environmental initiatives?

Have you introduced a new service or new ways of working?

Have you held any virtual events?

Are you doing something that others should know about?

Why not write an article for the journal?

We would be delighted to include any articles from anyone that would like to share their experiences with other members.

Need help? We are here to offer you any assistance or guidance with putting your article together.