THE ENVIRONMENTAL COST OF YOUR WETSUIT IS THE SAME AS A JUICY STEAK! 

MISSION STATEMENT

Our (very) basic wetsuit Life-Cycle Analysis may contain controversial points, but it's designed to initiate a dialogue. We aim to clarify facts, challenge misinformation, and expose 'greenwashing' regarding truly eco-friendly wetsuits. 

We recognize that it doesn't meet the criteria of a technical LCA from an ISO perspective, but we believe that some information is better than nothing at all.

We invite other viewpoints and will update our blog with verified information as it becomes available.

SUMMARY (TL;DR)

There is almost no publicly available information relating to the Life-Cycle Analysis of a wetsuit, so we decided to start the process ourselves. All of the data used in this article is from public sources and we have not carried out product testing.

This cannot technically be considered a true Life-Cycle Analysis, but it's a start. We aim to kickstart the discussion, and as more information becomes available through our supply partners and other sources, we will update this document. 

Our objective is to understand the environmental impact of Limestone Neoprene wetsuits compared to both Oil-based Neoprene wetsuits and ones made from Natural Rubber. 

The short summary is this:

• Natural Rubber (Yulex) wins on raw material emissions and renewable sourcing.

• Limestone Neoprene outperforms in durability, performance, and annual emissions.

• Over time, Limestone Neoprene results in fewer emissions per year due to its extended lifespan, making it the more sustainable option for frequent surfers.

• The most sustainable wetsuit is one that lasts longer, regardless of material origin. 

• You could eat one less steak a year  to offset the environmental cost of your ISURUS wetsuit.

WHAT'S A LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS?

From the internet: "Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA), also known as life-cycle assessment, is a primary tool used to support decision-making for sustainable development." In terms of a wetsuit, a full LCA completed on different wetsuits would allow everyone to understand the real impact on the environment of every aspect of the entire "life" of the wetsuit, including every component and trim. 

This diagram shows the stages to consider within an LCA:

This article provides more details on how LCA studies can be conducted in the fashion industry.

 

WHERE’S MY WETSUIT LIFE-CYLE ANALYSIS?

There are LCA's for all kinds of products, and it's becoming cheaper and faster to carry them out. Boardriders have started completing them on parts of their range for Quiksilver & Roxy. This recent report states that Boardriders completed LCA on 36 products in 2025. Although this represents a small part of their range, they are making some impressive steps towards sustainability across the entire business. 

However, no wetsuits are included in this report, and to our knowledge, there is no publicly available LCA for a wetsuit on record. Why is that? 

1. LCAs are complex and costly to conduct, even for items such as t-shirts and footwear. When you consider the number of materials (from zips to glue to jersey to neoprene) that go into a single wetsuit, it is a considerable task. Because most brands that could afford to carry out this detailed assessment update their wetsuits every season, this would quickly become out of date.

2. There are different levels to an LCA, so a surf corporation that doesn't delve into the details could be accused of greenwashing, and as mentioned above, it's both costly and time-consuming.

3. Limited transparency from the supply chain- you may not realize this - but the same supplier makes every wetsuit sold by surf corporations, and this supplier doesn't even mention LCA on their website. With limited control over the supplier, it's very challenging to get the accurate data needed for an LCA.
   
   

4. No incentive - because no one else is carrying out an LCA, there's nothing to compare yourself to. There's an argument that a certain company whose main claim is "environmental consideration" in its wetsuits should go first.  But the company that have been pushing Natural Rubber solutions hasn't yet taken that step. We'll explore the reasons behind this later in the article. 

There are LCA studies relating to just the material used in a wetsuit (such as this one by  Yulex) – and while this is a considerable part of the overall emissions, there are lots of other factors to account for. 

 

WHAT IS ISURUS DOING ABOUT THIS?

ISURUS is not tied to a monopolistic supplier; our main suppliers are exceptionally transparent with their production process.  We don't "update" our wetsuits every season to market a new "environmentally friendly" innovation.

But we are also not a large global corporation with deep pockets. We wanted to learn more about the challenges of compiling an LCA and make a start at understanding the impact of our material choices compared to those available on the market. 

Our secondary goal is to understand how important the choice of wetsuit is compared to other lifestyle decisions we're making - is the environmental impact of a wetsuit the biggest concern if we're flying to remote destinations to surf or eating meat every day?  

 

THE ISURUS PERSPECTIVE ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF WETSUITS

We should state upfront the ISURUS perspective on environmental impact. We acknowledge that every wetsuit has an environmental impact, so our commitment is to performance throughout the wetsuit's lifespan, ensuring it lasts as long as possible. We believe that the most sustainable wetsuit is the one that stays out of landfills the longest.

This article is broken down into two sections: 

1. Life-Cycle Analysis of wetsuits made from different materials.
   
2. How does this compare to other lifestyle choices?

Strap in for the full session, or skim read the headlines to get the gist.

ISURUS (VERY BASIC) LIFE-CYCLE ANALYSIS OF WETSUITS

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a systematic methodology for evaluating the environmental impacts associated with all stages of a product's life, from raw material extraction through production, use, and disposal. It provides a comprehensive view of the environmental aspects and potential impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle.

Breakdown of the phases for a wetsuit:

• Material Production
  
• Manufacturing
  
• Transportation
  
• Use Phase
  
• End-of-Life (Disposal)

There is no recycling phase, because it's practically impossible to recycle a wetsuit in a meaningful way.

To understand the total impact, we must consider the entire life cycle of the wetsuit. A detailed LCA requires huge amounts of data and insights into each stage of the life cycle and every material and process used in a product. This has never been completed with a wetsuit, so we will use rough ballpark numbers in our calculations to at least get an indication of the environmental impacts. 

Summary of Lifecycle Breakdown and Total CO₂ Emissions  of a petroleum-based Neoprene wetsuit

Lifecycle Stage	CO₂ Emissions (kg)
Material Production (Neoprene)	22 kg CO₂
Manufacturing	20 kg CO₂
Transportation	2 kg CO₂
Use Phase (Shampooing & Rinsing) 2 years	0.9 kg CO₂
End-of-Life (Disposal)	10 kg CO₂
Total Estimated CO₂ Emissions	54.9 kg CO₂

 

This provides a worst-case scenario for the environmental impact of a petroleum-based wetsuit, which is the most damaging material composition that's out there. 

You can see all the details behind these numbers in the appendix of this article.

Later in this article, we'll explore how that compares to other lifestyle choices, but first, let's examine the other material options that exist.

What's The Difference With Limestone Neoprene?

ISURUS uses Limestone Neoprene in our wetsuits; however, if we could find a better alternative, we would switch to it. It's important to note that we use Limestone Neoprene from Yamamoto, and not all Limestone Neoprene is created equal. 

Aside from any environmental benefits, it is widely accepted and scientifically proven to be the warmest, most flexible, and high-performance material for constructing surfing wetsuits. This is both anecdotally and scientifically the case. Professional surfers prefer to wear wetsuits made from this material (ideally by ISURUS) when given the option by their sponsors, and anyone who's ever tried a wetsuit made from this material will attest to its superiority.

Performance aside, let's examine how it compares to oil-based neoprene from a CO2 perspective: Replacing petroleum-based neoprene with limestone-based Neoprene alters the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in several key areas. Limestone-based Neoprene typically has a lower environmental impact compared to traditional petroleum-based Neoprene. 

Here's a breakdown of how the emissions would shift when using limestone-based Neoprene, based on available data and industry research.

Key Differences with Limestone-Based Neoprene (Yamamoto):

• • Limestone-based Neoprene is made from limestone (calcium carbonate) rather than petroleum. The production process for limestone-based Neoprene requires significantly less energy than the production process for petroleum-based Neoprene. 
    
    

  • CO₂ Emissions for Limestone Neoprene: Studies suggest that limestone-based Neoprene typically has a 30% reduction in emissions compared to traditional petroleum-based Neoprene. This is due to the less energy-intensive manufacturing process and the absence of fossil fuels.

  • The CO₂ emissions for limestone Neoprene are around  4.5 kg CO₂ per kg of material (instead of 6.49 kg CO₂ per kg for petroleum-based Neoprene).

 

Summary of Lifecycle Breakdown and Total CO₂ Emissions of a Limestone-Neoprene wetsuit:

All the details behind the calculation of these numbers are available in the appendix.

Key Takeaways:

• Limestone-based Neoprene significantly reduces the material production emissions of a wetsuit, resulting in a 20% reduction in carbon emissions compared to all components, as well as the petroleum-based Neoprene.
• The manufacturing phase also sees a reduction in emissions, albeit smaller (around 10%).
• The use phase is higher for the Limestone Neoprene wetsuit as it lasts longer, and the CO2 is based on shampooing and rinsing
• Transportation and end-of-life emissions remain largely unchanged between the two wetsuit material types.

• The total carbon footprint of a wetsuit  made from Limestone-based Neoprene is typically around 5.75 kg CO₂ lower  than that of one made from traditional petroleum-based Neoprene, resulting in a more environmentally friendly alternative.

Conclusion of Limestone Neoprene vs Petroleum-based Neoprene:

Switching to a limestone-based Neoprene wetsuit from petroleum-based Neoprene can offer a reduction in the overall environmental impact of the wetsuit, particularly in the material production phase. While it won’t completely eliminate the carbon footprint, it is a step in the right direction for surfers looking to reduce their impact on the planet.

When you also consider the performance benefits of Limestone Neoprene vs Oil-based, you can understand why ISURUS stands by using this material for our wetsuits as the highest-performance and lowest-impact material.

Considering the annualized impact:

Limestone Neoprene (especially from Yamamoto) is considerably more durable than oil-based alternatives thanks to the superior material composition. It's therefore important to view the impact on an annualized basis. 

For this calculation, we've assumed that:

• Petroleum-based wetsuit lasts 2 years

• Limestone-based wetsuit lasts 4 years

Annual CO₂ Emissions Comparison

Key Takeaways

Extending the lifespan of a wetsuit significantly reduces its annual environmental impact, even if the total emissions per wetsuit are similar. When a limestone-based wetsuit lasts 50% longer (4 years vs 2 years), the CO₂ emissions per year of use drop by 55% compared to a petroleum-based alternative.

This highlights two important factors for sustainability in wetsuits:

1. Material choice matters — Limestone Neoprene reduces production and manufacturing emissions.

2. Durability is critical — longer-lasting products reduce the frequency of replacement, which compounds environmental savings.

In short, choosing a limestone wetsuit that lasts longer delivers a double benefit for the planet — lower emissions per product and fewer products needed over time.

Based on this durability, you should also look at annualizing the cost of your wetsuit - a $200 oil-based wetsuit is the same as a $400 Limestone Neoprene wetsuit because it lasts twice as long.

 

LIMESTONE NEOPRENE VS NATURAL RUBBER

However, we also need to consider another material that is growing in popularity for wetsuits, natural rubber. The most popular version of this is commonly known as Yulex, and it’s used predominantly by Patagonia in their wetsuits. 

It should be stated that all of the wetsuits using Yulex include 15-20% Oil-based or synthetic rubbers in the material. The reason for this is that natural rubber alone has proven to have two disadvantages over oil-based Neoprene – it degrades more quickly when exposed to UV sunlight, and it lacks the same flexibility.

When comparing natural rubber to Limestone-based Neoprene, this difference is even more pronounced.  You can see this video, showing the comparative strength of Yamamoto’s Limestone Neoprene vs a natural rubber alternative under UV exposure.

In comparing natural rubber with limestone-based Neoprene, we will make two assumptions:

1.    It is an  85% natural rubber wetsuit in the case of natural rubber, with 15% being oil-based Neoprene (this is an estimate based on many "natural rubber" wetsuits on the market). We don't have any details on the "synthetic rubber" that is mixed with Yulex.

2.     The limestone-based Neoprene wetsuit will last 4 years, compared to 2 years  for a natural rubber alternative. This is quite generous considering a lot of anecdotal and scientific evidence suggests that natural rubber doesn't last as long as this. 

We'll provide more detailed calculations for transparency below, but it's essential to note these key points.

We'll compare the CO₂ emissions per year for each wetsuit, taking into account their different lifespans, and then calculate the total emissions over their respective lifetimes. This will help us understand the environmental impact on an annual basis and across the wetsuit's full lifespan.

Assumptions for LCA Breakdown:

Material Production
Natural Rubber (Yulex): Yulex’s natural rubber emits approximately 0.7 kg CO₂ per kg of material. This represents a significant reduction compared to petroleum-based Neoprene, which emits about 6.49 kg CO₂ per kg.
Limestone Neoprene: As previously mentioned, limestone-based Neoprene emits 4.5 kg CO₂ per kg.

Wetsuit Material Weight
The typical wetsuit contains approximately 3 kg of material (a rough average for a standard wetsuit), including 2.3 kg of Neoprene and 0.7 kg of additional materials such as linings, glues, and zippers.

Useful Lifespan
Limestone Neoprene wetsuit: 4 years
Natural Rubber wetsuit: 2 years

Use Phase
The use phase is calculated at 0.45 kg per year, so this is multiplied by the useful lifespan in each case. 
Limestone Neoprene wetsuit: 4 years x 0.45 = 1.8 kgs CO2
Natural Rubber wetsuit: 2 years x 0.45 = 0.9 kgs CO2

Other Lifecycle Stages (Manufacturing, Transportation, and Disposal)
For simplicity, we’ll assume similar emissions for both wetsuit types in the manufacturing, transportation, and end-of-life stages. These emissions will remain the same as we calculated earlier (i.e., 20 kg CO₂ for manufacturing, 2 kg CO₂ for transportation, and 10 kg CO₂ for end-of-life).

However, we will adjust the total CO₂ emissions for the natural rubber wetsuit to reflect a shorter lifespan (2 years) and the limestone neoprene wetsuit to reflect its longer lifespan (4 years).

Step-by-Step Calculation for Each Wetsuit:

1. Natural Rubber Wetsuit (using Yulex)

Material Production

• 85% of the neoprene component is Yulex (natural rubber): 1.955 kg × 0.7 kg CO₂ = 1.37 kg CO₂

• 15% is petroleum-based neoprene: 0.345 kg × 6.49 kg CO₂ = 2.24 kg CO₂

• Remaining components (lining, glue, zippers): 0.7 kg × 10 kg CO₂ = 7 kg CO₂

Material production emissions:
1.37 kg + 2.24 kg + 7 kg = 10.61 kg CO₂

Manufacturing: Estimated at 20 kg CO₂
Transportation: 2 kg CO₂
Use Phase: 0.9 kg CO₂ (assumed for 2 years of use)
End-of-Life: 10 kg CO₂ 

Total CO₂ Emissions for Natural Rubber Wetsuit (2 years)
Total CO₂ emissions = 10.61 kg (material) + 20 kg (manufacturing) + 2 kg (transportation) + 0.9 kg (use) + 10 kg (end-of-life)
= 43.51 kg CO₂

Annual CO₂ emissions for the Natural Rubber Wetsuit over its 2-year lifespan
43.51 kg CO₂ ÷ 2 years = 21.75 kg CO₂ per year

2. Limestone Neoprene Wetsuit

Material Production

• Neoprene (limestone): 2.3 kg × 4.5 kg CO₂ = 10.35 kg CO₂

• Remaining components (lining, glue, zippers): 0.7 kg × 10 kg CO₂ = 7 kg CO₂

Material production emissions:
10.35 kg + 7 kg = 17.35 kg CO₂

Manufacturing: Estimated at 18 kg CO₂ (based on a slight reduction in manufacturing emissions for limestone neoprene)
Transportation: 2 kg CO₂
Use Phase: 1.8 kg CO₂ (assumed for 6 years of use)
End-of-Life: 10 kg CO₂ (we’ll use an average of 7.5 kg CO₂)

Total CO₂ Emissions for Limestone Neoprene Wetsuit (6 years)
Total CO₂ emissions = 17.35 kg (material) + 18 kg (manufacturing) + 2 kg (transportation) + 1.8 kg (use) + 10 kg (end-of-life)
= 49.15 kg CO₂

Annual CO₂ emissions for the Limestone Neoprene Wetsuit over its 4-year lifespan
49.15 kg CO₂ ÷ 4 years = 12.3 kg CO₂ per year

Summary of Results: 

LCA Comparison: Limestone Neoprene vs. Natural Rubber (Yulex)

 

Key Takeaways:

Material Production: The CO₂ emissions for natural rubber (Yulex) are significantly lower due to the more sustainable material source (natural rubber vs. limestone-based Neoprene). However, the presence of 15% petroleum Neoprene and the emissions from additional components increase the overall footprint.

Manufacturing: Slight differences in emissions, with Limestone Neoprene having a slightly lower carbon footprint due to less chemical usage in processing and the use of renewable energy (hydro electricity) to power their factories and offices.

Use Phase: Both wetsuits incur similar emissions for maintenance, washing, and general upkeep. 

End-of-Life: There is no significant difference in emissions from disposal, as both types of Neoprene are non-biodegradable and often end up in landfills.

Conclusion:

• Natural Rubber (Yulex) has a slightly lower carbon footprint over its lifetime, but due to its shorter lifespan, its annual CO₂ emissions are higher.
• Limestone Neoprene has a slightly higher total carbon footprint, but its longer lifespan makes it more environmentally efficient per year in terms of annual CO₂ emissions.

This basic LCA suggests that Limestone Neoprene wetsuits are a better choice in terms of reducing environmental impact on an annual basis, especially if you're looking for a longer-lasting product. It's also important to note that the performance of Limestone-based Neoprene far exceeds that experienced by surfers wearing natural rubber.

 

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO YOU AS A SURFER?

While these LCA's are best estimates and not as accurate as we'd like, they provide a good overview of the likely impact of the main choices a consumer makes when selecting a wetsuit in terms of environmental impact.

Oil-based Neoprene is the most environmentally damaging option. A carbon footprint of between 55-75 kgs of CO2 per wetsuit is well-documented, and it's considerably more than either natural rubber or Limestone-based Neoprene.

That being said, oil-based Neoprene wetsuits tend to be considerably cheaper than the other options. If you're starting to surf, have a tight budget, don't surf very often, or don't care about the environment, then a mass-produced wetsuit may be suitable for you.

If you are concerned about the environment and willing to spend a bit more, then you've probably considered natural rubber as an alternative. Environmentally responsible companies celebrate this material as the main alternative to oil-based rubber, and there are some great LCA studies on the material to back this up. 

However, as we can see from the detail in this article, there is more than just the material to consider, and when you turn that material into an actual wetsuit that's going to be used, a few other points need to be considered:

1.    What is the likely total environmental impact of all stages of use?

2.    How well does the material perform for surfing?

3.    How durable is the material and finished product?

Considering the total impact, the reduction in CO2 from the material production gives natural rubber the edge. There is less CO2 used, and that's an important win.

Wetsuit performance is a tricky one because material is not the only factor, and some people may prefer the stiffer qualities of natural rubber. Analysing customer reviews of the two different materials reveals the following.

Flexibility

Yulex Natural Rubber:

• Early models were noted for stiffness and tightness, with some surfers finding them less flexible than traditional Neoprene.
• Recent updates, particularly in Patagonia's 2023/24 Yulex Regulator, have improved flexibility. The introduction of a 100% recycled polyester jersey lining has enhanced stretch and comfort.

Yamamoto Limestone Neoprene:

• Highly praised for exceptional flexibility, with some users noting a full range of motion comparable to or better than traditional Neoprene.
• The material's high stretchability (up to 480% of its original size) allows for easy movement, making it a preferred choice for surfers seeking maximum mobility.

 

Durability

Yulex Natural Rubber:

• Generally considered durable, with some users reporting long-lasting performance.
• Patagonia's Ironclad warranty and repair program further enhance the suit's longevity. 

Yamamoto Limestone Neoprene:

• Noted for superior durability, with a closed-cell structure that resists breakdown over time.
• Users report that the material maintains its elasticity and fit longer than traditional Neoprene.

Warmth

Yulex Natural Rubber:

• Provides excellent warmth, with many users finding it suitable for cold water conditions.
• The 2023/24 Yulex Regulator maintains warmth while improving flexibility.

Yamamoto Limestone Neoprene:

• Offers superior insulation due to its tight cell structure, retaining heat efficiently.
• Users report feeling warmer in thinner suits compared to traditional Neoprene, making them ideal for cold-water surfing.

Comfort

Yulex Natural Rubber:

• Comfort has improved in recent models, with softer linings and better fit.
• Some users still find them less comfortable than traditional Neoprene, especially in terms of initial fit.

Yamamoto Limestone Neoprene:

• Highly regarded for comfort, with many users describing the fit as second-skin-like.
• The lightweight and flexible nature of the material contributes to a comfortable surfing experience.

Comparative Overview

Attribute	Yulex Natural Rubber	Yamamoto Limestone Neoprene
Flexibility	Improved in recent models; still less than traditional Neoprene	Exceptional; high stretchability
Durability	Durable with proper care; supported by warranty	Superior; maintains elasticity over time
Warmth	Excellent; suitable for cold water	Superior; retains heat efficiently
Comfort	Improved; softer linings in newer models	Highly comfortable; second-skin fit

 

So while Yulex and natural rubber have improved, Limestone Neoprene from Yamamoto remains the clear winner in terms of performance. 

There is considerable evidence to suggest that natural rubber degrades more rapidly under UV and doesn't retain its stretch as well as Yamomoto Limestone Neoprene. When you take this into account and compare a 2-year lifespan to a 4-year lifespan, you can see that Yamamoto Limestone Neoprene can be considered to have a less significant environmental impact than Yulex natural rubber. 

This is a key reason that the companies who are championing Yulex have not invested in a full LCA: on an annualized basis, the environmental impact of using natural rubber is marginally better than oil-based Neoprene, and worse than Yamamoto Limestone Neoprene.

But more practically, as you can read below, the overall impact of your choice of wetsuit is not as important as these companies would have you believe. In the context of most surfer's lifestyles, the material of your wetsuit makes very little difference to your impact on the environment. 

 

HOW DOES MY CHOICE OF WETSUIT AFFECT MY CARBON FOOTPRINT?

We're constantly reminded of all the things we do that have an impact on CO2 emissions and the environment. While every decision we make has some impact, what's the choice of wetsuit like in the context of other important life-changing decisions we make, such as which surfboard to buy?

To gauge other environmental impacts, here are some basic estimates:

• A 6-foot hand-shaped surfboard in California typically has a carbon footprint of around 50–150 kg CO₂.
• The CO₂ emissions per passenger for a return flight from California to Costa Rica are approximately 621 kg CO₂.
• The environmental impact of driving to your surfing spot could be calculated like this: assuming you're driving 100 km (round trip) to your favorite surf spot, 30 times a year. The carbon footprint of these trips is around 485 kg CO₂
• The average CO₂ footprint of an electric bicycle is typically around 200–400 kg CO₂ equivalent over its lifetime, considering both the bike and the battery.

We take our impact on the environment seriously, but even riding an electric bike to the beach has a greater impact than your choice of wetsuit. You probably have more surfboards than wetsuits, so perhaps you should consider alternative options beyond the standard construction if environmental concerns are a factor.

But for all of these surf-related emissions, nothing compares to the CO2 of your steak:

Beef production is known for its high environmental impact, especially when compared to plant-based foods. If you consume 100 kg of steak per year, you're looking at 2,700 kg CO₂equivalent per year—a far higher carbon footprint than any wetsuit. Source: Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018)

Given the annualized CO2 cost of a Yamamoto Limestone Neoprene wetsuit is estimated to be 12.3 kgs per year  - that's around 500g of steak.  

That's right - your ISURUS wetsuit has roughly the same environmental cost as a decently-sized steak. 

FINAL THOUGHTS

CO2 is not the only thing to consider when it comes to the environment, but it's a widely accepted benchmarking tool for making environmental decisions. ISURUS takes environmental impact seriously, but believes the most sustainable wetsuit is one that stays out of landfill the longest. By building the most durable and high-performance wetsuits available, we also capture our environmental objectives.

Because our wetsuits are amazing to surf in and last a long time, they are also the best option in terms of environmental impact. 

Additionally, you may be able to surf an ISURUS wetsuit 1mm thinner than another mass-produced brand, so you could have one less wetsuit in your quiver! 

Take this quiz to find out if that's a viable option for you. 

DISCLAIMER

We have made reasonable efforts to assess as much publicly available data as possible in the writing of this article. We acknowledge that what we've presented cannot be considered a technical LCA by any standards, but it's a start. We hope that by starting to delve into some of the details, however patchy, we can initiate the conversation and persuade some of the corporations with much deeper pockets to conduct ISO-compliant LCAs of wetsuits. 

 

Key Reference:

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). "Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers."
Science, 360(6392), 987–992.
DOI:10.1126/science.aaq0216

Appendix

The numbers used in our calculations are from a number of sources and articles,  including some provided by ChatGPT. We have made reasonable efforts to verify the sources and be as transparent as possible, but we welcome all further input into our assumptions, which is why we are providing all the workings below. 

Our hope and aim is that corporate companies who manufacture wetsuits carry out detailed, and not so basic, LCA's of their products to give more transparency to customers. 

(Very) Basic LCA of a petroleum-based Neoprene wetsuit

1. Material Production: Neoprene (Petroleum-Based), including components

The largest share of emissions in the life cycle of a wetsuit comes from the production of Neoprene, which is made from petroleum and involves energy-intensive processes.

Assumption: The wetsuit weighs 3 kg in total, of which 2.3 kg is Neoprene. The remainder consists of lining fabrics, zips, tapes, adhesives, and other trims.

Carbon emissions per kilogram of neoprene: According to several LCA studies, the production of petroleum-based Neoprene emits approximately 6.49 metric tons of CO₂ per metric ton of neoprene (or 6.49 kg CO₂ per kg of neoprene).

Calculation for material production:

2.3 kg neoprene × 6.49 kg CO₂/kg neoprene = 14.927 kg CO₂

0.7 kg of nylon/polyester/glue/zip components at 10 kg CO₂/kg →
0.7 × 10 = 7 kg CO₂

So, for the material production phase (neoprene), a wetsuit generates approximately 14.93 + 7 = 21.93 kg CO₂

2. Manufacturing Process (Assembly, Cutting, Stitching, Sealing)

The manufacturing process involves cutting, stitching, and sealing, which generates additional emissions due to energy use, machinery, and chemical processes.

Assumption: Manufacturing emissions are typically estimated at around 25–30% of the total emissions for a wetsuit. While studies vary, one commonly cited figure is that manufacturing alone adds around 10–20 kg CO₂ to the total emissions.

Energy consumption: The cutting of neoprene and the use of adhesives and solvents during the assembly contribute to emissions, as do the energy requirements for factory operations.

Calculation for manufacturing process:
Assume that manufacturing adds 20 kg CO₂ to the wetsuit's footprint.

3. Transportation

Transportation from the factory to the retailer or consumer adds CO₂ emissions. The majority of wetsuits are produced in China or Thailand and shipped globally, particularly to markets in North America, Europe, and Australia.

Assumption:
A wetsuit weighs approximately 1–3 kg.
Shipping a wetsuit from Asia to Europe or North America (on average) can emit around 2 kg CO₂ per wetsuit, depending on the distance and mode of transportation (air freight being more carbon-intensive than sea freight).

Calculation for transportation:
Assume 2 kg CO₂ for transportation from the factory to the retail channel.

4. Use Phase (Shampooing, rinsing, maintenance)

The use phase for the wetsuit, considering rinsing and occasional wetsuit shampooing, is estimated at 0.45 kg CO2 per year.  For each wetsuit material type, we have assumed a differentlifespan in order to calculate this total. 

An oil-based Neoprene wetsuit is estimated to have a useful life of 2 years, so the total CO2 generated for the Use Phase is 0.9 kgs of CO2.

5. End-of-Life (Disposal or Recycling)

The end-of-life phase includes the disposal or recycling of the wetsuit. Most wetsuits are not recycled due to the lack of infrastructure for neoprene recycling, meaning they end up in landfills.

Assumption:
Disposal emissions depend on how the wetsuit is managed at the end of its life. Since neoprene is non-biodegradable, the emissions from disposal are largely related to the waste management process.

Recycling programs (such as Patagonia’s wetsuit recycling) are limited, so most wetsuits are disposed of in landfills.

Since the disposal phase is hard to quantify accurately, it's often conservatively estimated that end-of-life adds an additional  10 kg CO₂ (to account for transportation to landfills and waste processing).

 

(Very) Basic LCA of a Limestone-based Neoprene Wetsuit

1. Material Production: Neoprene (Limestone-Based)

Limestone-based neoprene is considered less carbon-intensive than petroleum-based neoprene. While it still involves mining, chemical processing, and high energy inputs, it generally emits less CO₂ per kilogram produced.

Assumption: The wetsuit weighs 3 kg in total, of which 2.3 kg is limestone-based neoprene. The remainder consists of linings, zips, adhesives, and other components.

Carbon emissions per kilogram of limestone-based neoprene:
Several industry and academic sources estimate emissions at approximately 4.5 kg CO₂ per kg of limestone neoprene.

Calculation for material production:

2.3 kg neoprene × 4.5 kg CO₂/kg neoprene = 10.35 kg CO₂
0.7 kg of nylon/polyester/glue/zip components at 10 kg CO₂/kg →
0.7 × 10 = 7 kg CO₂

10.35 + 7 = 17.35 kg CO₂

So, for the material production phase, a limestone neoprene wetsuit generates approximately 17.35 kg CO₂, compared to ~22 kg CO₂ for petroleum-based neoprene.

---

2. Manufacturing Process (Assembly, Cutting, Stitching, Sealing)

The manufacturing process for limestone neoprene is broadly similar to petroleum-based neoprene, but may involve fewer chemical treatments and slightly lower energy inputs.

Assumption: Manufacturing emissions may be approximately 5–10% lower due to cleaner processing methods and reduced chemical use.

Calculation for manufacturing process:

Manufacturing emissions = 20 kg CO₂ × 0.90 = 18 kg CO₂
(A reduction of 2 kg CO₂ compared to petroleum-based wetsuits)

---

3. Transportation

Transportation emissions are independent of neoprene type, as they are driven by distance, weight, and shipping method.

Assumption:
Shipping a 3 kg wetsuit from Asia to Europe or North America emits approximately 2 kg CO₂.

Calculation for transportation:
Assume 2 kg CO₂, the same as for petroleum-based wetsuits.

---

4. Use Phase (Shampooing, rinsing, maintenance)

The use-phase emissions are generally similar for both limestone and petroleum-based neoprene. However, because the Limestone Neoprene wetsuit will last longer, there is a higher environmental impact.

This is estimated at 0.45 kgs of C02 per year, and with a lifespan of 4 years, we estimate 1.8kgs of CO2 for the use phase. 

 

---

5. End-of-Life (Disposal or Recycling)

Neoprene, regardless of source material, is non-biodegradable and difficult to recycle. Most wetsuits are landfilled or incinerated at end-of-life.

Assumption:
Disposal adds 10 kg CO₂ due to transportation and waste processing.