An Interview with Joe Sehee: Part Two

Joe Sehee

Joe Sehee comes from a background of social justice as a Jesuit minister while his wife, Juliette Sehee, worked as an advocate for the environment. About a decade ago, they decided to open a retreat for the grieving, to inspire spiritual healing through nature — this idea ultimately led to the foundation of the Green Burial Council in 2005.

This is Part Two of the interview. Read Part One here.

Aurora: What is the difference between “conservation burial” and green burial?

Joe: Green burial, or natural burial, is the term we use to describe funeral service that helps conserve energy and natural resources and reduces the use of toxic chemicals.  The GBC coined the term conservation burial at the Land Trust Alliance National Rally in 2005.   We did this so the American public could understand there really is a way to use burial to facilitate landscape-level conservation land and ecological restoration.  Conservation burial, as we’ve defined it, requires the involvement of an independent steward like a land trust, which oversees a conservation easement and performs ongoing monitoring and reporting.  We believe that burial has much potential to be a market-based conservation tool, but only if it’s done the right way.  And despite what some may think, conservation, restoration and stewardship do take money.

Aurora: What is the Green Burial Council’s position on cremation?

Joe: We think that every mode of disposition should be an option within green burial.  While there are those who believe cremation should not be allowed to be part of the green burial movement, we think it’s important to remember that many people have religious and/or economic circumstances requiring its use. Rather than guilt tripping consumers into avoiding cremation, we’d rather support ways to make the process more ecologically sound.   One way is for consumers to chose a scattering program like the one we’ve been developing with the Texas Department of Parks And Wildlife, which is intended to raise money towards acquiring and protecting at-risk landscapes.

A few years ago, we hired an environmental planning firm to help us establish a carbon offset program for cremation and discovered that it only takes about a $4 contribution to a carbon fund to offset the C02 from the typical cremation.  That amount may seem high to some, but to others it seems insignificant compared to all the energy associated with driving our cars and heating and cooling our homes.  One of the funeral homes in our network of approved providers, The People’s Memorial Society of Seattle, makes a $4 contribution to a carbon fund for every cremation they do — and they’ve told us this gesture is really appreciated by families.

Aurora: I’m aware that it’s a complex issue — but in general, which is more sustainable: green burial or cremation?

Joe: There’s probably nothing better for the planet than placing a body in the ground, simply and naturally.  There have been several attempts to compare the environmental impacts of cremation versus burial and almost all the studies suggest that it really depends on the kinds of questions being asked. For example, if you just look at the process of cremation and the amount of CO2 coming out of the retort, cremation may not look so green.  But if you count car trips for a service at a cemetery or for future visits, cremation appears much less energy intensive.

Aurora: How do you feel about recycling the heat from cremation, as one Swedish town has begun to do? Is that a significant reduction of waste? Are there other ways to minimize the environmental impact of death?

Joe: That’s exactly the kind of idea that the GBC supports.  When it comes to minimizing the environmental impacts of death, what consumers need to understand is that there are many ways to do this — often, there are tradeoffs.  For example, some people may want to use coffins that are made from timber that comes from sustainably harvested forests because they care about protecting natural habitat.  Others may be okay with any timber, as long as it doesn’t come from overseas because of the additional embodied energy.  And what may matter most to others is making sure the burial container does not contain toxic chemicals because they value worker health, regardless of where the product is manufactured.  This is a sensitive, often complex, subject matter.  Increasingly, the GBC is trying to come forth with better information so consumers can make better decisions.

Aurora: What is your advice to SevenPonds readers who may be weighing disposition options for themselves or a loved one?

Joe: I would give the same piece of advice I gave to my own family after the death of my father last week, which is: “give yourself permission to do what you feel is right and don’t let anyone dictate how you can best honor the dead, heal the living, and invite in the divine.”  My sister had been bothered by a comment a priest made about how the preference of the Church was that the body be physically present at the funeral mass.  Interestingly enough, it was a funeral director who helped convince my sister that it was okay if only my dad’s ashes were at the church for the service.  I hated that she had to experience that angst, but my sister is the kind of person who likes to follow rules.  One of the cool things about green burial is that while the GBC may set standards, there really are no rules.  Green burial allows people to take greater control of their end-of-life rituals and gives them the freedom to do things a little differently.  In fact, that may be its greatest gift.