Beanie’s funeral

Planet loving or ‘greenwashing’? 

Paul Kefford considers some of the many ways in which funeral practices impact the environment, challenging us to reflect on the extent to which industry offerings and personal choices are consistent with aspirations to care for our planet.  

When a person arranges a funeral, they may feel an enormous pressure to get everything ‘just right’.  Sometimes the number of choices on offer can be overwhelming and in competition with one another, making for difficult decisions.  Important environmental considerations will not be everyone’s priority, but Beanie’s case story challenges us to take them seriously.

At its crudest level, every funeral is dealing with ‘waste’.  It involves the disposal or, we might say more gently, the laying to rest of a person’s body.  The sensitive nature of this undertaking perhaps makes it a ‘privileged task’ for which some degree of harm to the environment might be considered allowable.  But just how much harm should we accept?  What, if any, environmental harm is inevitable when we dispose of a body?   And what should be sanctioned in connection with otherwise nice-to-haves, such as Beanie’s nieces’ suggestion to release balloons?  This commentary unfolds some of the considerations Beanie may have pondered.

Beanie understood and lived the notion that environmental stewardship starts with personal commitment and action.  Through much of his campaigning for the environment, he would have been aware of the significant ‘greenwashing’ in many walks of life – the clever but deceptive use of marketing and public relations to persuade people that certain products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly, when in fact they cause significant harm to the environment.  When hearing about ‘carbon offsets’, for example, he would have understood that a newly-planted tree can take many years to capture the amount of CO2 that a carbon-offset scheme promises to people who want to compensate for their emissions, and that a large proportion of trees die before they reach maturity, returning the carbon captured in their branches to the atmosphere.

Beanie clearly made an active choice for a burial rather than cremation.  Beyond meshing with his idea of himself in the world and being returned to the earth at the end of his life, he considered the wider environmental impact of his funeral – and indeed the bereavement sector.  He was alive to the importance of finding sustainable ways of disposing and recycling the almost 700,000 human bodies per year in the UK.  No doubt, he would also have kept global environmental justice in mind as he made his choices.

Beanie would have thought about the environmental impact of burning all the carbon in a body and coffin through cremation, a choice made by nearly 80 per cent of those who died in the UK in 2020.  He would have considered the unsustainability of melting almost 3,000,000 single use plastic handles from these coffins, or the emissions from coffins created from particle board.  He might have become aware of the nearly a quarter of crematoria without direct mitigating ability on site to reduce the release of mercury particles (from the melting of teeth fillings) or the 93 per cent of crematoria which continue to emit significant nitrogen oxide[i]. 

Beanie certainly would have also been concerned about the environmental and potential health damages of chemicals, such as formaldehyde, used in the embalming of bodies.  He would have disliked the euphemism in descriptions such as “the process of introducing a disinfectant solution to the internal environment of the body when someone passes away” because of the way they disguise environmental damage.  Beanie would have considered the intrusive process of embalming as not only unnecessary but unsustainable as it required the washing of his bodily fluids, including residues of pharmaceuticals, into the water system.

If he had lived in America, Beanie might have been attracted to the idea of human composting (allowable in Washington State since 2020).  But he would also have had questions about that: where would this compost be spread and what would it do to delicate ecosystems?  Many people would be queasy about the waste product of human composting being used on a farmer’s field, but Beanie would also be concerned about the damage which could be caused to say a bio-diverse flower meadow which thrives on poor soil.

Beanie would have thought carefully about his choice of coffin, willow – presumably from a UK source.  While the case story doesn’t state it, one could imagine that Beanie would not have wanted his coffin lined in ‘crem film’ (a single-use plastic used to line many coffins, effectively shrink-wrapping a body) rather than say a natural and largely unprocessed fibre such as the linen he chose, or calico, or a recycled material such as a decorator’s dust sheet.  Willow would have appealed to Beanie because it sequestrates carbon during its growth and a coffin made of it would be fully biodegradable - as long as no processed glues or staples or nails were used during its manufacture.

Of course, a funeral director might have introduced Beanie’s brother Rich to other ‘biodegradable and environmentally friendly’ alternatives to a willow coffin.  Had Rich been shown a shroud, Beanie might have approved.  But he would probably have raised an eyebrow at carboard coffin because these are often created with a non-bio-degradable water sealer.  He would also have eschewed a coffin made of banana leaf.  True, Beanie, would have recognised that leaf coffins are created as a by-product of banana farming (often with a low environmental impact), but Beanie would have considered the carbon cycle implications across whole life-cycle of the product and not have been swayed by what he considered greenwashing claims.  While using a waste product might be portrayed as ‘natural cycle renewable’ and ‘good for the local environment”, use of toxic glues and the air freighting of the coffin to the UK would not have passed Beanie’s sniff test of environmental credentials.

When requesting garden flowers only, Beanie would have been aware of the unsustainability of export-oriented flower-growing in Africa, where use of pesticides and herbicides is less regulated than the UK (damaging to people and the environment), not to mention all the shrink wrapped plastic (around the flowers), the cling film to hold individual bunches together, the air miles needed to freight perfect blooms to the UK in the height of winter, and the fact that the flowers are often disposed of in landfill a couple of days after the funeral.  Beanie would also have rejected any use of plastic trays to hold flowers stuffed into oasis (which is unrecyclable, non-biodegradable and created with formaldehyde).  He would also have been disappointed that 86 per cent of crematoria do not currently recycle single use, but very reusable, plastic, and that only 23 per cent compost old flowers.

Finally, thinking about memorialisation, Beanie was very unlikely to sanction a polished granite memorial stone from China.  And while he would have been touched by his nieces thought at releasing balloons in his honour (and relieved they had not suggested fireworks), he would have known of their polluting impacts.  How, Beanie would have asked, could the latex or mylar (foil) balloons be disposed of without harming animals or the environment?  And could it be justified to use  helium to fill balloons at a time when there is a worldwide shortage of the gas, including for medical purposes?

So dear old Beanie, environmental campaigning to the end, recognised that his death would have some environmental impact, but sought diligently to mitigate it.  His funeral requests were consistent with his expressed concern for the planet.  His case challenges the rest of us to think ahead of time about our own funeral wishes. 

Beyond balloons – acting when many things matter

Vikki Entwistle reflects on some of the different values and interests that might be operating in the story of Beanie’s funeral.

In the story, Beanie’s niece suggests “it would be lovely if everyone released balloons.”  The suggestion prompts different responses and the story ends with Rich, the child’s father, wondering what best to do.  For the various characters in the story, the proposal to release balloons is connected to different things that can matter about funeral provision and more generally.  Their views and actions are likely influenced, at least in part, by the responsibilities associated with their particular social roles and circumstances.

In this commentary I start to tease out some of the values and interests that might be operating in the story of Beanie’s funeral.  I also illustrate how wondering what might be best to do sometimes leads people to develop new options that can better accommodate multiple values.

Beanie’s family and their initial ideas

Beanie’s niece proposes the balloon release because she thinks it would be lovely.  Her younger sibling agrees.  We might guess that the children either aren’t aware or haven’t thought of concerns that the released balloons might end up being harmful to animals or the broader environment.  The suggestion is well-motivated on their part.  

Their father, Rich, is trying to support the children in the aftermath of their uncle’s illness and death, and he is relieved they are keen to join in their uncle’s funeral.  His considerations reflect a widely accepted view that it is good to encourage children to engage in personal and social expressions of grief, and in celebrations or commemorations of those who have died, and to do so in ways that are meaningful to them.  They initially seem to incline Rich to pursue the children’s suggestion to release balloons.

Death professionals and ways of working

The funeral director in the story immediately offers to source the balloons and invites Rich to identify preferred colours or designs.  Of course, not every funeral director or staff member would respond in the same way, but this response seems consistent with a widespread commitment among funeral directors in the UK to facilitating what their clients want.  Funeral directors typically offer a range of choices, including diverse accessories, and they are typically willing to make various arrangements to accommodate diverse preferences and enable people to personalise funerals.  However, responding to clients’ wishes can sometimes clash with other value considerations – such as the environmental impact of the balloons in the case story.  Funeral directors need to decide what to do in such situations. Their view of their position and role will likely influence their decisions.  

Funeral directors need to survive in business.  Satisfying clients’ wishes can be seen as important for securing future business, especially when this depends heavily on word-of-mouth referrals.  Some potential clients, however, will seek or appreciate funeral directors with strong environmental commitments.  Funeral directors can also derive profit by selling more accessories (such as balloons) and this presents a conflict of interest – or at least generates a tension with the idea that funeral directors should be working to meet their clients’ needs in relation to the person who died.  The need to survive in business can thus variably influence the way in which funeral directors offer options and elicit and respond to clients’ preferences.

In the story, Rich is Beanie’s executor and the funeral director’s client.  It is Rich who has contracted and will pay the funeral director, and so Rich who has the power of say so about what will and will not happen at the funeral.  

As Beanie’s executor, Rich is expected to consider Beanie’s known funeral wishes, although he is not legally obliged to enact them.  We know from the story that Rich “wanted to do right by” his brother.  I interpret this in the light of the general notion that we should usually respect people’s wishes about what is done with their body when they die and about what form their funeral might take.  It is not clear at what point in the story Rich first realised that releasing balloons would not be consistent with Beanie’s commitment to care for the environment or with his wishes for an environmentally friendly funeral.  Certainly, however, the celebrant expressed concern about this.  

Celebrants often come to know more about the person who died than funeral directors do, because of their involvement in preparing eulogies and spoken services.  Beanie had selected his funeral celebrant carefully, so the celebrant in the story probably had a strong personal interest in avoiding unnecessary environmental damage.  Celebrants, however, typically have limited influence over what happens at a funeral beyond the spoken services that they lead.  Celebrants are expected to be responsive to their bereaved clients, but often in some respects to funeral directors as well, because in many cases it is the funeral directors who mediate their hiring for clients.  This arrangement can also render celebrants dependent on funeral directors for future work.

The manager of the natural burial ground was clear that balloons were banned there.  Natural burial grounds usually have explicit organisational policies that reflect concerns to protect the environment, perhaps supported by market research into what matters to the various people who use such grounds.  Explicit policies can support consistent decision making by staff and help ensure a high priority for environmental considerations.

Finding a way forward

The case story ends at the point that Rich is unsure what to do.  He wants to give his brother the environmentally friendly funeral that he requested, but still, he doesn’t want to disappoint his children.  The story could continue in several ways which we might find more and less satisfactory in respect of our various value concerns.  

For example, a commercially minded funeral director or balloon seller might propose ‘eco-friendly’ latex balloons as a compromise.  A little research in the spirit of Beanie’s investigations, though, would suggest these can still cause problems for animals and can take a long time to degrade in many of the places to which they are blown on release.

Rich might consider instead that he and his children could hold a private balloon ceremony at home.  That at least would involve fewer balloons and enable more controlled waste disposal.  But the children might not be satisfied if the balloons weren’t going to float off into the distance (and heaven?). And, depending on the children’s age and ability to understand, Rich would still likely want to explain why he would not be following their initial suggestion, although he appreciated their good intention with it.  Alongside that explanation, perhaps equipped with a few initial ideas from friends and environmentally careful death professionals, Rich might devise various alternative creative activities or actions with the children to enable them (and perhaps others) to do something else special at or for their uncle’s funeral.  With an option such as planting seeds or a tree in Beanie’s memory, the children’s good intention could be appreciated and developed with them into something that could be even better than a balloon release because it would help fulfil their uncle’s wishes that we all do what we can to look after our planet.