This episode originally aired in October, 2019.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet and use science to find everyday solutions.

I’m Megan Hall. This week’s question comes from listener Charlie Bakst. He was a columnist at the Providence Journal for forty years and he’s beginning to think about his own mortality. He says he wants to be buried when he dies.

Charlie Bakst: I have a problem in my imagination with the idea of being cremated. I don’t like the idea of them taking my body and consuming it. I don’t know what they do exactly, but I don’t want to know. 

But he’s curious, is burial or cremation more environmentally friendly?

We had Alina Kulman and Molly Magid from our Possibly team look into this question. Welcome Alina & Molly!

Alina Kulman: Hi Megan!

Molly Magid: Hello!

Megan Hall: So, what did you find out?

Alina: Well, we started by going down to Swan Point Cemetery to visit a place that’s set aside for what they call “green burials.”

Molly Magid: The president of the cemetery, Anthony Hollingshead, says these green burials start with a completely different type of coffin.

Anthony Hollingshead: It’s a willow casket. Totally biodegradable… no artificial material around the grave.

Alina Kulman: These coffins make it easier for your body to degrade and turn into soil.

Megan Hall: But what about the chemicals used to preserve a body, doesn’t that harm the soil?

Molly Magid: Well in a green burial, the body isn’t embalmed with chemicals like formaldehyde.

Alina Kulman: Which means the body isn’t preserved, so the funeral usually has to happen closer to the time of death. That means that if you’re interested in having a green burial, it’s worth planning it ahead of time.

Megan Hall: Is there anything else that’s different about a green burial?

Molly Magid: Yes, Anthony explained that you don’t have your own gravestone. Instead, there’s a memorial stone for the whole area. This reduces the greenhouse gas emissions that come from pouring concrete for each person.

Alina Kulman: But green burials still take up space. And cemeteries have to mow and irrigate plots, which uses energy and water.

Megan Hall: Ok, well what about the impact of cremation?

Alina Kulman: Well, cremation definitely saves more space because ashes don’t have to be buried.

Molly Magid: But there are other things to worry about, starting with the energy that’s used to cremate someone.

Alina Kulman: It’s hard to get precise numbers, but the Cremation Association of North America says that, on average, the whole process releases about 70 kg of CO2 per cremation. 

Megan Hall: Is that a lot? 

Molly Magid: About as much as the emissions associated with a one way flight from Providence to Washington DC.

Megan Hall: Is that better or worse than the emissions from keeping a burial plot watered and mowed?

Molly Magid: Well, it depends. A normal burial is definitely worse, but some green burials grow native plants around the gravesite to limit the need for mowing and watering. So, it all comes down to how many resources are used to maintain your plot. 

Alina Kulman: But let’s put this into perspective- your burial isn’t going to significantly impact the planet. The carbon emissions from people flying to your funeral could be more than your burial or cremation. In the end, how you live matters much more for your carbon footprint than how you die. 

Molly Magid: And for something as profound as your final resting place, you have to think about your personal preferences and the preferences of your loved ones. For instance, Charlie says he still wants to be buried but…

Charlie Bakst: She has other plans. She wants to be cremated. We know this about each other and we don’t really debate it. We just have different tastes.

Molly Magid: And now that Charlie knows about green burial, it’s something he’s considering for himself.

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks Alina and Molly.

For more information or to ask a question about the way you recycle, use energy, or make any other choice that affects the planet, please use our question page.

Possibly is a co-production of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society and the Public’s Radio.  

Resources

1. Environmental impact of Funerals. Life cycle assessments of activities after life. Keijzer, Elisabeth. September 2016 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 22(5) DOI: 10.1007/s11367-016-1183-9
2. Barbara Kemmis, Cremation Association of North America, personal communication, October 7, 2019.
3. Carubia, J. (2013). Sustainable end-of-life arrangements: An overview. NCUR.
4. “A different way to die: the story of a natural burial.” https://www.vox.com/2016/5/29/11775976/natural-green-burial
5. “Ever Green” http://eastsidemonthly.com/stories/east-side-monthly-august-2019,32564
6. “Death Be Not Manicured” https://slate.com/technology/2006/12/the-latest-in-green-burial.html
7. Sustainable End-of-Life Arrangements: An overview http://ncurproceedings.org/ojs/index.php/NCUR2013/article/view/360/359
8. “Eco-Afterlife: Green Burial Options” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eco-afterlife-green-buria/
9. “How Does Cremation Measure in Sustainability?” https://www.northwoodscasket.com/northwoodscasket/2014/10/18/how-does-cremation-measure-in-sustainability

Cremation emissions calculations

The “worst case scenario” is only one cremation per day, since with multiple cremations, the chamber retains heat and uses less energy for subsequent cremations. The amount of energy used in this scenario is 13-14 therms. These figures comes from the following calculation (numbers from Barbara Kemmis at the Cremation Association of North America):

1.     The burner uses ~1.32 mmBTU/hr

2.     The total process is ~2 hours but the burner is on for only ~1 hour for the initial heat up, since after it’s heated, the air is circulated to maintain heat and minimize smoke emissions. This means it uses 1.32 mmBTU.

3.   1,320,000 BTU* 1 therm/99976.12 BTU = 13.2 therms

4.   1.32 mmBTU * 117 pounds CO2/mmBTU (from: http://bit.ly/2JzxpPV) = 154.4 pounds CO2 = 70 kg CO2

The post Is Cremation Or Burial More Environmentally Friendly? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Is Cremation Or Burial More Environmentally Friendly? appeared first on Possibly.

This episode was originally published on December 2, 2019.

For the same amount of heat, wood produces more emissions than oil. Plus if everyone in Rhode Island uses wood stoves to heat their home, we would deplete our forests in just a few years. However, if the wood you burn is already dead or dying, then it would decompose and release those same emissions.

Our recommendation is to heat your house using an oil furnace and only use a wood stove if you burn salvaged wood.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet, and break them down into small questions with unexpected answers. I’m Megan Hall.

Today we have a question from listener Lisa Wright. She asks: “Our house has an oil furnace and a wood stove. Which one is best to heat our home in the winter?” 

We had Alina Kulman and Molly Magid from our Possibly team look into this. Welcome Alina and Molly!

Alina Kulman: Hi Megan!

Molly Magid: Hello!

Megan Hall: So should Lisa heat her house using an oil furnace or wood stove?

Alina Kulman: Well first we talked with Lisa to learn more about how she heats her house

Lisa Wright: We keep the furnace around 64 during the day and when the stove is going nicely it keeps the house cozy

Molly Magid: So during the day, Lisa sets the temperature for her furnace low and uses the wood stove to boost it up to 70. 

Megan Hall: Ok Lisa uses both her furnace and stove, but she wants to know the impact of each heating source on its own?

Alina Kulman: Exactly. And this question might apply to many Rhode Islanders. The state has seen a spike in people who rely on firewood to heat their homes. 

Megan Hall: Alright, so where did you start?

Molly Magid: First, we looked at her oil use from last year, which was about average for household heat in Rhode Island, and calculated that it releases about 10 tons of CO2 per year. 

Megan Hall: And what would the emissions be if Lisa just heated her home using the wood stove?

Alina Kulman: Well we estimated that, to heat her house for a year, Lisa would need to use the wood from about 50 trees. The number depends on what kind of wood, but 50 is a good ballpark.

Molly Magid: And burning all of that wood releases about 14 tons of CO2 per year.

Megan Hall: So burning wood creates more emissions than heating with oil?

Molly Magid: Yes, for the same amount of heat, wood creates more CO2 emissions.

Megan Hall: So, it’s always better to burn oil instead of wood?

Alina Kulman: Well, that depends on where Lisa gets her wood 

Molly Magid: She says that sometimes she buys firewood but also…

Lisa Wright: We had a couple of trees removed in our backyard, so we used that wood.

Megan Hall: Is that better?

Alina Kulman: Well, trees also release CO2 emissions when they die and decompose. In fact, those emissions are equal to what happens when you burn that wood in a stove. 

Megan Hall: So if Lisa only used salvaged wood for her stove, those CO2 emissions would be released whether she burned the wood or not? 

Alina Kulman: Right. 

Molly Magid: But cutting wood specifically to burn it is a different story.

Alina Kulman: Cutting trees to heat all our homes just isn’t feasible.   

Molly Magid: Remember, it would take 50 trees just to heat her house. If everyone in RI used wood to heat their homes, we’d clear all the trees in the state in just a few years.

Megan Hall: So, what’s the answer to Lisa’s question? 

Alina Kulman: Our recommendation is that Lisa should heat her home using her oil furnace, and should use the wood stove to supplement only if she burns salvaged wood.

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks Alina and Molly 

That’s it for today. For more information or to ask a question about the way you recycle, use energy, or make any other choice that affects the planet, check out our question page.

Possibly is a co-production of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society and the Public’s Radio. 

References

1. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=15431

The post Oil-Burning Furnace Or Wood-Burning Stove? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Oil-Burning Furnace Or Wood-Burning Stove? appeared first on Possibly.

In general, the carbon dioxide cycle works this way- plants pull CO2 out of the air, people or animals eat those plants, and then breathe CO2 back out. Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 that was pulled out of the air, and the amount returning to it, was balanced. But now that we burn fossil fuels and cut down trees, we’ve dramatically increased our emissions.

Can we plant enough trees to soak up all of these emissions? The short answer is no. We just don’t have enough space. If we wanted to reverse climate change with trees, we’d have to grow an Amazon rainforest on approximately fifty percent of the surface of the earth. Trees do play an important role in soaking up carbon dioxide; they just can’t keep up with our emissions. It’s on us to stop burning fossil fuels and start getting our energy from renewable resources like wind and solar.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet, and use science to find everyday solutions.

I’m Megan Hall. This question comes from John Bender, a reporter at The Public’s Radio. He wants to know– if CO2 causes climate change and trees use CO2 to grow, would it be possible to plant enough trees to reverse climate change?

We had Alina Kulman and Molly Magid from our Possibly team look into this question. Welcome Alina and Molly!

Alina Kulman: Hi Megan!

Molly Magid: Hello!

Megan Hall: So, what did you find out?

Alina Kulman: We talked with Stephen Porder, a professor of ecology at Brown University. He also happens to be a founder of this podcast.

Megan Hall: So what did he say about this question?

Molly Magid: Before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 that was pulled out of the air, and the amount returning to it, was balanced. 

Alina Kulman: In general, the cycle works this way- plants pull CO2 out of the air, and people or animals eat those plants, and breathe CO2 back out.

Molly Magid: But now that we burn fossil fuels and cut down trees, we’ve dramatically increased our emissions. 

Megan Hall: So could we plant enough trees to soak up all that extra carbon dioxide? 

Molly Magid: Stephen says that would just take up too much space. 

Stephen: You would need to grow essentially Amazon rainforest on about 50 percent

of the entire surface of the land.

Alina Kulman: And that would be just enough to deal with our past and current emissions. But we keep creating more every day.

Megan Hall: But what if we regrow some of the forests that we’ve cut down? Won’t that help?

Molly Magid: Forests do have a role to play. Since large scale agriculture moved to the midwest, New England forests have started to regrow and soak up more CO2.  But as our CO2 emissions rise, the trees just can’t keep up.

Alina Kulman: According to one study, if all of the tropical forests in Central and South America that were cut down were allowed to regrow for forty years, they would only soak up ONE year’s worth of carbon emissions.

Molly Magid: Stephen made this analogy:

Stephen: It’s like biking to work vs. flying to Australia If you’re gonna go fly to Australia, biking to work doesn’t make up for it.

Megan Hall: Ok, so if planting trees isn’t the solution, what is?

Alina Kulman: The problem is on us. We need to stop burning fossil fuels that create these emissions.

Molly Magid: That means we’ll have to get our energy from renewable sources like wind or solar

Megan Hall: Great! Thanks Alina and Molly! 

That’s it for today. For more information or to ask a question about the way you recycle, use energy, or make any other choice that affects the planet, go to “the public’s radio dot org slash possibly” 

Possibly is a co-production of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society and the Public’s Radio. 

References

1. Chazdon, Robin L., et al. “Carbon Sequestration Potential of Second-Growth Forest Regeneration in the Latin American Tropics.” Science Advances, vol. 2, no. 5, May 2016, p. e1501639, doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501639.
2. Bastin, Jean-Francois, et al. “The Global Tree Restoration Potential.” Science, vol. 365, no. 6448, July 2019, p. 76, doi:10.1126/science.aax0848.

The post Can We Plant Enough Trees To Fix Global Warming? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post Can We Plant Enough Trees To Fix Global Warming? appeared first on Possibly.

Megan Hall: Welcome to Possibly, where we take on huge problems like the future of our planet.

And break them down into small questions with unexpected answers.

I’m Megan Hall. Today we have a question from a listener named Lisa: She says, “If you can’t compost your food scraps, is it better to throw them in the trash or put them down the kitchen disposal?”

We have Alina Kulman and Molly Magid from our Possibly team here to answer this question. Welcome Alina and Molly!

Alina Kulman: Hi Megan!

Molly Magid: Hello!

Megan Hall: Let’s start with what happens when you put food waste in the trash.

Molly Magid: Well, food waste in the landfill decomposes and releases methane, which is an even stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. 

Alina Kulman: At Rhode Island’s landfill, most of this methane is captured and burned for energy.

Molly Magid: The bad news is, food waste is the biggest category of municipal waste in Rhode Island , and the landfill is running out of space– it’s supposed to fill up in about 15 years.

Megan Hall Ok, so does that mean we should put all our food waste down the garbage disposal? 

Alina Kulman: We visited Rhode Island’s biggest wastewater treatment plant, at Fields Point, to find out. 

Molly Magid: Public Affairs Manager, Jamie Samons, says the sewage plant ends up with a lot of unintended trash. 

Jamie Samons: We do see things like Dunkin Donuts cups and McDonald’s wrappers and the occasional soccer ball. Anything that can go down a sewer drain

Alina Kulman: She includes food waste in the category of things that don’t belong here, because the plant is only set up to handle sewage, nothing else.

Molly Magid: And just like in the landfill, food waste in the treatment plant releases methane when it decomposes. 

Alina Kulman: There are plans to create a system to capture and use that gas, but that hasn’t been built yet, so the methane that’s created is just released into the atmosphere.

Megan Hall: Okay, so if the wastewater treatment plant can’t process our food scraps, and the landfill is filling up, where should this food go?

Molly Magid: In this case, we actually don’t have a clear answer.

Alina Kulman: The ideal solution is to waste less food.

Megan Hall: But how?

Molly Magid: We can start by shopping smarter. Studies show that most of America’s food waste comes from individual consumers throwing out the food they don’t eat. 

Alina Kulman: To fix that, plan your meals before going to the grocery store so you only buy what you need. 

Molly Magid: And then think about how to preserve the food you have, like putting leftovers or extra ingredients in the freezer.

Megan Hall: Great, thanks Alina and Molly! That’s it for today. For more information or to ask a question about the way you recycle, use energy, or make any other choice that affects the planet, visit our question page.

Possibly is a co-production of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society and the Public’s Radio.

Sources for this episode:

1.     https://www.lovefoodhatewaste.com/

2.     http://guardiansofgrub.com/

3.     http://www.wrap.org.uk/food-drink

4.     https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/food-loss-waste-protocol 

5.     Marashlian, N., & El-Fadel, M. (2005). The effect of food waste disposers on municipal waste and wastewater management. Waste Management & Research, 23(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X05050078

6.     Iacovidou, E. & Voulvoulis, N. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2018) 25: 35821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2479-z

The post What Should You Do If You Can’t Compost Your Food Scraps? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post What Should You Do If You Can’t Compost Your Food Scraps? appeared first on Possibly.

The only items that can be recycled are paper, cardboard, metal cans and lids, foil, glass bottles/jars, and plastic containers. The worst thing you can put in your recycling bin is a plastic bag. That’s because plastic bags jam up the machines at the recycling center. However, plastic bags are still recyclable. You can drop them off at collection boxes in most large stores.

The post What Can Be Recycled? appeared first on TPR: The Public's Radio.

The post What Can Be Recycled? appeared first on Possibly.