Green Neoprene?

Recently there has been a lot of talk in the surf world about “green” wetsuits (1, 2, 3, 4). Most of the claims revolve around the use of neoprene made from limestone rather than petroleum. I asked Todd Copeland, who works on Patagonia's Fabric Development team, to shed some light on these claims.

Many of us at Patagonia wear wetsuits but until 2005 none of us had ever developed one. When we first sought to get into the business, we went to visit the raw material manufacturers to learn how neoprene is made, what kinds of materials are available, and their relative advantages and drawbacks, including environmental.

A wetsuit is basically made of foamed rubber, sometimes called a sponge. It can be laminated on one or two sides to fabric, usually polyester or nylon in a jersey knit. The pieces are glued and/or stitched together to make a wetsuit, and then the seams can be sealed to prevent water leakage.

The sponge is made from polychloroprene rubber chips, commonly called neoprene. These are melted and mixed together with foaming (blowing) agents and pigment, usually carbon black, and baked in an oven to make it expand.

To make the polychloroprene chips, the manufacturer polymerizes chloroprene monomers, which means reacting small molecules together to produce the large macromolecules (polymers) that make up rubber. There are two methods of manufacturing chloroprene monomer. The most common method – Method 1 – takes butadiene through a two-step process of chlorination and subsequent dehydrochlorination. The butadiene for Method 1 is derived from petroleum. The less commonly used method is to dimerize acetylene (react 2 acetylene molecules together to form a double molecule) and then hydrochlorinate the dimer. The acetylene for this Method 2 is derived from limestone.

Most people can imagine the environmental impacts of something derived from petroleum. Like gasoline and most synthetic chemicals, the origins of butadiene for making chloroprene via Method 1 start with oil exploration and drilling. Then the crude must be transported. (Images of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, the Exxon Valdez, and birds dying in oil spills come to mind.) At the refinery, components of crude oil are broken apart and separated to make different organic compounds, including butadiene.

The environmental impacts of something derived from limestone, however, are unfamiliar. Like oil, limestone is a limited, nonrenewable resource that is extracted from the earth. Limestone rock is mined from mountains, and requires diesel-powered equipment such as cranes, backhoes, and dump trucks the size of houses. The crushed limestone is fed into a furnace and heated to extremely high temperatures (over 3600º F) in an energy-intensive process. From the furnace, components are reacted with other chemicals to make products such as acetylene gas.

Chloroprenes derived from either petroleum or limestone are chemically equivalent. Polymerized and made into chips, limestone-based polychloroprene is not inherently stronger or more flexible than petroleum-based polychloroprene nor does it insulate better. Any advantage of one fabric or another relies on differences in manufacturing methods used to create the sponge.

Patagonia uses limestone-based polychloroprene for most of its neoprene products. Reducing dependence on oil and oil-derived chemicals is important. However, the trade-off in this case involves mining, pollution from diesel fuel combustion, and high energy usage. We have drawn the conclusion that both versions of polychloroprene have equally significant environmental impacts, although limestone definitely has the advantage of being easier than oil to clean up in the case of a spill!

Polychloroprene from any raw-material source creates the greater part of a wetsuit’s environmental impact; the other components such as nylon or polyester fabric play a much smaller role. We have reduced the environmental impact of our wetsuits by using recycled polyester and chlorine-free wool in the lining. These materials are more environmentally friendly than virgin polyester or chlorine-treated wool, respectively. The biggest environmental gain, however, is efficiency: the wool grid lining allows us to use a thinner layer of neoprene without sacrificing warmth retention. For example, Patagonia’s 3-mm suit is as warm as a typical 3/4, reducing the amount of polychloroprene in the wetsuit and, proportionately, its environmental impact.

One way to further “green” a wetsuit would be to focus on the adhesives in both the lamination and gluing processes. Solvents used in these processes evaporate into the air during manufacturing, polluting the environment with VOCs (volatile organic compounds). Converting to nontoxic, more environmentally friendly methods of laminating fabric to neoprene and gluing cut pieces would greatly reduce a wetsuit’s environmental footprint.

I’m glad to see that surfers are interested in buying and using “green” wetsuits. But don’t settle for marketing “greenwash!” Limestone doesn’t make a wetsuit more environmentally friendly. Push for new, innovative materials and construction methods, because we’ve got a long way to go before anyone has a true “green” wetsuit.

Todd Copeland
Patagonia, Inc.

Comments

[jf.]

thanks for your thoughtful and clear explanation of an issue the rest of us don't have the time or context to understand at first glance.

an incisive cutback to accurate marketing. shaka.

[Jason]

JF-

Thanks for the comment! I imagine this will educate some people, who knows...it may even make some people mad. I'm horrible with chemistry, but I learned a lot during this process and thouht that we could provide this information publicly allowing people to make their own informed purchasing decision. We recognize that our wetsuit isn't the 100% solution for a "green" product but we felt it necessary to shed some light on a subject that seemd to be greyhounding in a questionable direction. At the outset we realized that by introducing a wetsuit that was quote unquote "greener" others would most likely follow suit, and that's a good thing. Part of our mission is to raise the bar in terms of consumer expectations by providing the information necessary for them to make an educated purchase. As a company, we are far from perfect, we know that, but we need/expect consumers to take us to task and demand even better. If industries survive on consumers, then consumers have the ultimate power to change them, we just have to demand it! In my opinion people should investigate where their "green" products come from and make sure they're not being taken for a ride. Complacency is the enemy of innovation, and given the current state of things in the world, complacent is the last thing anyone anywhere can afford to be.

Thanks again for kicking of the conversation!

J

[JM patagonic]

kudos patagonia. sure there's a bit of marketing (or 'green washing' as some may say) but you're not claiming that your wetsuits are the answer to making something completely eco-friendly. i'm sure it's still to be seen what the impact of carbon output would be in comparing production of the petroleum based sponge rubber and limestone based sponge rubber. is there a difference in how much time it takes to cure these in the heating ovens ? if so, the ovens play a large role in energy consumed (or carbon output).

if a story of good, better, best ... it does seem thus far as best offer in the green consumers eyes... and maybe a good example of something of less (material) is more (warm).

most 'greener' products have more to do with innovative design / construction methods instead of use of materials at this point. oil seems to be at the demand of so many industries so it's hard to take petrolium based chemicals out of the 'more green' equation just yet...

[Ricardo Salcedo]

Todd,

Thank you for the honest and detailed explanation about the differences between limestone and traditional petroleum based wetsuits and their manufacture. At Phoresia.org we’ve been researching and writing about more “sustainable” surf products for the last two years and the changes we’ve seen in respect to green washing are outrageous. Even SIMA is promoting green marketing workshops these days.

The one thing you don’t mention in your piece is longevity of a given product. Most high end winter suits (I live and surf in Atlantic Canada) will not last more than two seasons. That’s a lot of waste. Although I have yet to try one of your suits, I am familiar with Patagonia’s stance on product life and if your wetsuits last as long as your jackets well then that in itself is a boon. Now if someone could make booties that actually keep your feet warm in freezing water…

Ricardo

[confused]

I'm confused still. If the impacts of Limestone mining and everything that goes into mining are yet to be seen, how is it possible that you can claim...."Patagonia Wetsuits: Warmer, More Environmentally Conscious"? Because of the other components that make up the construction of the suit? Glue, wool and polyester? How much more enviro friendly are Patagonia suits compared to what the industry standards are?
I am some what shocked that you don't know the effects of Limestone mining are. Usually you folks are reall good about doing your homework before you dive into something.
Don't get me wrong, I love what you do and stand for. I think you should just call it what it is, it's a wetsuit that has few enviro aspects/details.

[Jason]

Confused-

You are correct, we say warmer and more environmentally conscious because the sum of the parts allows us to build a better whole (a warmer wetsuit using less neoprene). Bullding a suit comprised of better components (Chlorine free wool and recycled polyester jersey are definitely more enviromentally conscious than virgin nylon and ployester linings/exteriors) allows us to use less of the most environmentally damaging components (chloroprene, commercially known as neoprene). This help clarify at all? It's still not perfect, we acknlowledge this, which is why we've chosen to say "more conscious" and not "green" as we feel this is a more accurate, honest, and fair description of our product.

enjoying the conversation...

J

[rob70]

What about durability?

Limestone neoprene is fragile, all the brands using it have problems with rips and splits. If a limestone 3mm suit lasts half as long as a petro 3/4, then the petro can be said to come out on top in terms of it's efficiency.

I'm no petro supporter, I think the negative social and political aspects of the material far outweigh the durability gain it offers, but durability is an issue that needs to be addressed.

If you guys get a durable limestone suit ready for next season, I'm in it.

[Jason]

Rob-

I hearya loud and clear man! We've addressed some durability issues that we have received from customers. It's kind of funny, some of the materials used commonly on wetsuits in Japan just don't have the durability needed for use in the American market. Our original smoothie cuffs had to be changed because people were tearing them when they put their suits on. This is never a problem in Japan as they use plastic bags and socks to ease any strain when suiting up, nevertheless we made the change for the American market. Similarly we've seen returns (and yes I see and process them all) and some wear issues in legs and arms and this has been addressed. The one thing we haven't figured out (short of not using smoothie) is how to keep such a soft, flexible, naturally windproof material from getting nicked, scratched and torn. I've seen legit tears from fins and rocks, but I've also seen just as many tears from fingernails, rings, and from people squeezing into a suit that is too small. We're currently testing some alternatives to smoothie and if the overall equation of warmth, flexibility and durability pencils out after these tests than you can bet we'll most likely move in that direction. After all, it's people like you pushing us to make better product, our own desire to do so, and the satisfaction of a job well done that makes it all worth while.

Here's to making better product!

Jason