There’s no question that conversations around sustainable funerals and death care are growing - and that they are important. Desmond Tutu chose water cremation for himself, and Martha Stweart wants a form of green burial or composting for herself. As with most things, sustainable deathcare exists on a spectrum. There is no “best” way to go as this decision largely depends on location, budgets, and preferences.
The environmental impacts of flame cremation are real. The benefits of alternatives like natural burial and natural organic reduction (terramation) are also real - and we greatly believe in the potential of regenerative options to positively reshape how we return to the earth. But accessibility is an important part of these conversations that often get left out.
Market research shows that a majority of Americans express interest in greener end-of-life options. Yet when families are faced with making a decision, cost remains the number one determining factor.
Even at LifeSource, where we work intentionally to offer natural burial and terramation at some of the most accessible price points in Southern California, these options are still financially out of reach for many families.
Are fossil fuel subsidies part of what makes flame cremation appear comparatively inexpensive? Absolutely. Should we be satisfied with that imbalance? No. But it is not fair to frame sustainable deathcare as a simple moral choice. Because for many families, it is a financial one.
Sustainability conversations often get flattened into binaries; good versus bad, green versus harmful. But real life is more nuanced.
Are there ways to offset the environmental impacts of cremation? Yes.
Can cremated remains be returned to the earth responsibly? Also yes.
Can families plan ahead through multi-pay pre-need policies to make greener options more attainable over time? Absolutely.
Terramation remains one of the most regenerative options available. Providers like Return Home are demonstrating how this process can return nutrient-rich soil to families and restoration projects.
At the same time, cremation is not environmentally neutral, but it is not devoid of value either.
In agriculture, bone char and bone meal have been used for centuries as sources of nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. When concentrated, cremated remains can harm plants. But when properly diluted, roughly three to four parts soil or compost to one part cremated remains, they can support established plant life. That nuance matters.
In states like Colorado, regulatory frameworks allow for more flexibility around the effluent from aquamation (also known as water cremation). In some cases, that nutrient-rich liquid can be used to support soil biology.
Here in Southern California, however, regulatory and logistical constraints make that level of reuse difficult and prohibitively expensive. What is possible in one region is not always feasible in another, and that means working within those realities while continuing to advocate for progress.
For LifeSource, the goal is not to simply offer the most environmentally progressive options. It is to serve the entire community. If sustainable deathcare is only accessible to those with financial privilege, then we are not upholding our values.
We can advocate for systemic change.
We can educate about environmental impacts.
We can expand access through pre-need planning.
And we can meet families where they are - without shame or oversimplification.
Sustainability is a spectrum, and progress often happens in increments.
At its heart, this work is about returning life to the earth in ways that honor both people and planet. It is also about honoring the lived realities of the families we serve.
