Sometimes it’s the heart that is last to go, a knot of dense muscle still recognizable after the other organs have long since vaporized. Sometimes non-combustible material is found among the remains — prosthetic implants, dental filling sand unretrieved jewellery, mingling with hinges and nails from the coffin. Two hours at 900°C is usually enough to reduce us to our bare essentials, the chemicals, gases and minerals from which we originated.

The human body is like that of any other creature, a biological cog in a cyclic enterprise of birth, death and rebirth. But the methods by which we inter our remains reflect our tendency to view death as a final state, an attitude manifested in our burial practices. We have come to face our natural demise in most unnatural ways, with the vast majority of us destined for one of two ends: a formaldehyde-infused corpse in a laminated coffin entombed in a cinder block vault, or a fiery evaporation into ash and nothingness.

The growing understanding of human impact on Earth’s climate, however, has brought about an awareness of our own place within the ecosystem, and an embracing of ourselves — not just our actions, but our very bodies — as an ecological factor rather than an exception. Rather than pre-serve our bodies artificially or seek to escape our natural end, we are beginning to realize we can extend Earth-friendly lives with Earth-friendly deaths. An entire industry is surfacing in North America focused on this end — burial practices that allow us to biodegrade as plants and animals have been doing naturally for millions of years, feeding the ecosystem, rather than poisoning it.

Beyond the fossil fuels consumed in the cremation process, the reduction of the human body to cinders releases a grab bag of pollutants into the atmosphere, ranging from chemicals to heavy metals to sulfur dioxide (a source of acid rain) and carbon monoxide (a contributor to global warming). Included in this long list are dioxin, a known carcinogen, and furan. Emissions of these toxic chemicals can only rise if cremation continues its pace as the send-off of choice.

Traditional funerals are hardly a better option. Manicured expanses of headstone-pocked grass — appearing as nature-friendly as a verdant prairie — conceal a toxic soup of formaldehyde and other preservatives and disinfectants from the embalming process, which is seeping into groundwater and contaminating the surrounding soil. Mortuary chemicals have been linked to increased rates of leukemia and other cancers.

No wonder, then, that the idea of natural burials is taking hold in North America. The movement promotes chemical-free burials in biodegradable containers to gently usher our bodies back into the ecosystem. Buried without embalming fluid, laminated wood, cement chambers, and sometimes even headstone markers, bodies disintegrate into flora- and fauna-dense surroundings, not only reducing the presence of chemical contamination and green-house gases, but providing nutrients for a healthy ecosystem. Though natural burials are offered as a service by some traditional cemeteries, there is a growing impetus for entire cemeteries built upon this concept.

Eco-friendly cemeteries, known as natural burial grounds, first appeared in the United Kingdom in the 1990s, and have since sprung up in North America from New York to Texas. The movement in Canada is being spearheaded by the Ontario-based Natural Burial Co-operative.

Natural burial grounds do more than just reduce pollutants otherwise caused by cremation and traditional burials. Some eco-cemeteries function as wild spaces, marking graves with local rocks and flora rather than headstones, keeping track of burial plots through GPS locators. Rather than a chemical-dense, artificial landmark, people can visit family and friends in a wildlife preserve free of pesticides, herbicides and man-made materials, knowing that their deceased loved ones are nurturing a vibrant ecosystem.

Excerpted from CheckerSpot Magazine

Do you have more money than God and no time in your busy day to do your bit for Global Warming?

Then check out the pricey designs that were spotted at a recent Tokyo fashion show. The latest in Japanese fur designer Chie Imai’s creations included a cape of lowly polyester sewn with chinchilla that’s being billed as “ecological fur.”

The cape, bolero and several other items use real chinchilla and mink from fur farms. But the fabric parts of the clothing use recycled polyester from Japanese plastic and pharmaceutical maker Teijin Ltd.

“We have not compromised quality. And tying ecology with fur is such a fascinating concept,” Imai cooed.

“Ecological fur” sometimes refers to fake fur, but Imai uses real fur. Her so-called ecological designs use polyester strips and fabric with genuine fur. A bolero, for instance, has real fur trim, but the fabric parts and the lining are all recycled polyester.

Imai is the latest fur designer to use synthetic materials with fur - despite complaints from animal rights activists that the term “ecological” is just “green-washing” – a ploy to distract people from the mistreatment and cruelty of animals in the fur industry.

But Imai argues that fur itself is ecological because it can be worn for generations and “returns to the earth” as organic material and causes no pollution. She trots out the tired old argument about meat-eating.

It takes more than 60 times as much energy to produce a fur coat from ranch-raised animals than it does to produce a fake fur. Plus, the waste produced on fur farms poisons our waterways. And don’t forget … unlike faux fur, the “real thing” causes millions of animals to suffer every year.

Imai’s ecological fur — ranging in price from 1.2 million yen (US$12,000) for the mink bolero to the 8.4 million yen (US$83,000) chinchilla cape — allows her clientele, which includes the Japanese royal family and clueless celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker, to feel green, she said.

“They want to take part in being ecological, but it’s hard for them to find a way to do it.”

Watch for the Chinese dog-and-cat-fur knock-offs being flogged next to the organic food section at Wal-Mart.

Chie, what’s next? Recycling bisphenol A? Solving World Hunger?

Excerpted from Japan Times

Tokyo Correspondence

Treehugger

Another Imai airhead

Fur farming (warning: graphic images)

Environmental art is a catch phrase that includes land art, earth-sensitive art and artists working with natural materials. Land art is a phenomenon of the ’60s and ’70s, with artists like Robert Smithson who made his Spiral Jetty in Great Salt Lake, Utah, one of those grandiose environmentally insensitive works that transformed the landscape.

Earth-sensitive art is smaller in scale, integrating an assemblage or sculpture in a natural setting, and there is art made with natural materials, which is usually exposed indoors.

~~ John Grande

Art critic John Grande writes about environmental art in his book, Balance: Art and Nature

Believing that artistic expression can and does play an important role in changing the way we perceive our relation to the world we live in, art critic John Grande takes an in-depth look at the work of some very unusual environmental artists in the United States, Canada, and -Europe.

Grande contends that the egocentricity of modern western society and its infatuation with technology and consumerism have increasingly separated us from the natural world. That separation has an impact on the way our art is conceived, formed, marketed and even displayed. Grande proposes that art return to being more “ecocentric,” reminding us that we are derivative and essentially dependent on natural processes. “In developing a nature-specific dialogue that is interactive, rooted in actual experience in a given place and time, and giving these elements an equal voice in the creative process,” he writes, “we are ultimately respecting our integral connectedness to the environment.” Holding such a vision, we will come to see that “nature is the art of which we are a part.”

To develop a dialogue more in touch with nature, Grande argues that artists should favour their specific culture and the diversity of the ecological communities in which they live rather than the homogenizing pressures of internationalism. He asserts that contemporary artists’ preoccupation with international “market recognition,” often reinforced by museums and funders, promotes a “product standardization” that takes precedence over any desire to represent one’s own culture and bioregion. In such a horizontal milieu, artists and their works consequently become easily interchangeable. The attendant appropriation of Third World, tribal and extranational art styles not only mirrors acts of economic expropriation but also often ensures the commercial success of the collusive artists. Such appropriation barely pauses to appreciate the source culture’s context and meaning.

As an alternative, Grande proposes that we celebrate the cultural diversity naturally intrinsic to each ecological community or bioregion. Such a preference would nourish the artistic expression of the cultural symbolism and spiritual values unique to that region. It would enhance an intuitive dialogue with nature in the creation of art, encouraging a healthier relationship with the local environment.

John Grande website

I think, a lot of art has as much to do with fashion and the look of things as it has to do with a kind of search for breakthroughs or a higher meaning. In a way we almost have an over-production situation where art is fine and society is in bad shape. It is one of my main concerns right now, The programs are working. Artists are producing. But the actual society is breaking down in many ways as a collectivity and becoming sort of digitalized. We have become digitalized producers and consumers.

Nature is the house that supports us all. We sometimes forget that. The same thing can be said for the world of art. What really nourishes art, more than ideas, is the physical world, and it is the main sustaining feature of any kind of aesthetic, even so-called immaterial ones.

Interview with Mike MacDonald

Interview with John Grande at Green Museum

EcoArt Network

Art critic, writer, lecturer and interviewer, John Grande’s reviews and feature articles have been published extensively in Artforum, Vice Versa, Sculpture, Art Papers, British Journal of Photo-graphy, Espace Sculpture, Public Art Review, Vie des Arts, Art On Paper, Circa & Canadian Forum. He is also the author of Balance: Art and Nature (a newly expanded edition by Black Rose Books in, 2004), Intertwining: Landscape, Technology, Issues, Artists (Black Rose Books, 1998), Jouer avec le feu: Armand Vaillancourt: Sculpteur engagé (Lanctot, 2001), and his most recent book, Dialogues in Diversity: Marginal to Mainstream published in Italy in 2007 by Pari Publishing.

Epiphany is the climax of the Advent/Christmas Season and the Twelve Days of Christmas, which are usually counted from the evening of December 25th until the morning of January 6th, which is the Twelfth Day. January 5th is usually considered Twelfth Night.

This is an occasion for feasting in some cultures, and the end of the annual Christmas tree sacrifice.

This year, the carnage was everywhere. Coniferous remains lay scattered in the streets, used and discarded. Only days ago, they basked in the warmth and glow of an atmosphere filled with love and festive spirit.

Every Christmas, the seemingly cruel treatment of natural, once-alive conifers strikes a chord. Thirty million trees are ripped out each year, so that indulged North American families can enjoy them for two weeks and then just easily dispose of them.

Every year, the decorating magazines wring their hands over real versus artificial.

Most Christmas trees are now raised on established farms, meaning deforestation isn’t an issue, but they must be shipped, often from long distances. Because they are farmed as agricultural products, they often require repeated applications of pesticides over their typical eight-year lifecycles. Therefore, while they are growing–and then again once they are discarded–they may contribute to pollution of local watersheds. Beyond the run-off issue, the sheer numbers of trees that get discarded after every holiday can be a big waste issue for municipalities that aren’t prepared to mulch them for compost.

85% of artificial Christmas trees are made in China, typically from oil-derived, pollution-releasing polyvinyl chloride (PVC). A number have been found to contain lead. Once finally disposed of, artificial trees will last for centuries in landfills. And they have to be shipped.

The easiest, most festive way to be earth friendly is to decorate with a living Norfolk Island Pine. No live trees to cut down, no dead needles to clean up and no discarded tree to drag to the curb and overload the landfills.

Easy to grow, Norfolk Island Pines make cheerful centerpieces during your holiday feast and add eco-flair to your home’s decor. A native of the South Pacific, the soft, compact needles and naturally symmetrical shape of the tree provides a charming backdrop for all your seasonal celebrations.

Small enough for a tabletop display in the kitchen or hall or large enough to be the focal point of any room, they tuck nicely into tight spaces in apartments, dorm rooms, patios or cozy corners. After the holidays, untrim your mini tree and place it in a pretty pot and use as a house plant. With just a little care, your Norfolk Island Pine will reward you for many Christmases to come.

Place the Norfolk Island Pine in an open, bright location such as on countertops, tabletops or in an office, but not in full sun. They prefer to be near a window but away from direct heat. Keep the soil moist but don’t let it dry out or stand in water. Feed with a complete balanced fertilizer every month.

Of course, greenest of all would be an outdoor tree: a newly planted Colorado blue spruce, say, just outside the biggest north-facing window of your home (to block winds and help lower heating bills), And instead of ornaments, the tree attracts real feathered friends.

If you want a live tree, especially in northern climates, wait until spring. Unlike a live Christmas tree, which will come in from the cold and then be moved out again, a spring tree is likely to remain outside and then be planted within days, greatly improving its chances of survival, he explains.

For those determined to have a living holiday tree, try a potted one. Keep it in a biodegradable pot and, if it is moved to a porch or garage after the holiday, it should do fine in the soil once it thaws.

Discarded Christmas trees

A Scarborough homeowner who spent 10 years cultivating a native plant garden of more than 150 species says Toronto bylaw officers went well beyond their authority by chopping it down without warning last week. Deborah Dale returned home from work last Tuesday evening to find the plants removed from in front of her home.

“I called the police because my garden had been vandalized. It’s not the first time I’ve had plants stolen, but to have the entire garden been taken away … After 10 years it’s not funny in the least,” said Ms. Dale, a former president of the North American Native Plant Society.

City officials confirmed yesterday they were responsible for removing the garden, which was on both Ms. Dale’s property and on the city-owned boulevard, saying they had received complaints that the garden had become unruly and offensive. The cost, about $200, will be added to her property taxes.

The Toronto Municipal Code requires all lawns to be kept trimmed to 20 centimetres or less. Natural gardens, those of free grown plants native to the area, are exempt. But Bill Blakes, the area’s manager of municipal licensing and standards, said the city rarely issues such exemptions. In Scarborough, he issues about 12 a year.

Ms. Dale said the city had no right to deem her property an eyesore simply because they didn’t recognize the plants she was growing.

“The city not only destroyed flowering plants and plants that were setting seed for use by the North American Native Plant Society in their fundraising efforts, but they also removed shrubs, a red oak tree, and even the sign indicating that it was a natural, pesticide-free garden,” she wrote in an e-mail. She listed Cardinal Flowers that attracted hummingbirds and Butterfly Milkweed — finally in full bloom after years of growth — as some of the casualties.

A 2003 complaint about her garden was dismissed, Ms. Dale said. On June 26, the city received a new complaint. She received an infraction notice the next week, she said.

“I know the neighbours complain. I’ve complained about them, they’ve been hacking at my hedge. The city can’t do anything about that. Apparently they can do something like enter private property and destroy my garden,” Ms. Dale said.

Mr. Blakes said the city responds to complaints about unruly gardens and lawns with an “advisory letter”, and then a second warning before sending in the mowers. Ms. Dale said she’s filing a grievance against the city to recoup the cost of her garden, approximately $10,000.

“That’s 10 years of work. I don’t have the time or the money to put back into recreating that garden from scratch. It took years, and it took a lot of courage. When you have a blank slate like that, just digging the first hole and knowing you’re going to be doing something a little different that not everyone is going to understand, it’s very difficult.”

Meanwhile, Ms. Dale is still upset at the loss of her personal nature project. “The city hasn’t responded to my complaints about this. They haven’t even acknowledged they’ve done it. I explained to the bylaw officer again that it’s a native plant garden and it’s exempt from any bylaws. There are no weeds at all in the garden. I invited them to come out and look at it. And that’s the last I’d ever heard.”