Is wool really better than acrylic?
If you’re the type to read this blog, you’ve probably already answered this question; wool, of course. It’s natural, warm and doesn’t release micoplastics into the water when washed. Acrylic is cheap and you can buy it at H&M, which is probably a store you don’t love so much since jumping on the ethical fashion bandwagon. I encourage you, however, to stay skeptical on your zero waste or ethical lifestyle journey; there is unfortunately a lot of bad information from natural living gurus promoting pseudoscience getting tangled up in zero waste. Question their sources, question your own assumptions, and question mine.
On the topic of acrylic and wool, I had a few concerns regarding their impacts: what is acrylic made of? Do the sheep making wool require a lot of resources or result in major emissions like livestock raised for food? Does the resource intensive process of raising and sheering sheep cancel out any good? Does acrylic, like polyester, use a relatively small amount of water? Despite being synthetic, does acrylic use fewer of our limited resources to produce?
And before we begin, keep in mind that a pre-existing resource is always more ethical and ecofriendly than a new one. Wear the clothes you have, shop secondhand, and only buy new as a last resort.
Acrylic
Acrylic used in clothes is a fiber derived from crude oil, ie., fossil fuels. According to the Water Footprint Network, it has an even higher water footprint than cotton, which is a particularly thirsty plant (x). Acrylic is essentially a plastic, and is cheap, which is why it’s so common in fast fashion. When it comes to the basics of needing to feel warm in cold weather, acrylic is a significantly more accessible fiber for many people because it’s so widely available and inexpensive. Acrylic is also a vegan material since it’s synthetic.
Wool
Wool must be sheared from sheep long before it can be knit; cleaning the wool, or wool scouring, can be a very water intensive process, although certain less traditional methods use less water than traditional methods. Lanolin, a by-product of wool, is kept aside and used for a variety of products. Producing and processing wool requires a lot of resources, and there is a lot of material loss since the initial amount sheered is greater than the amount of wool after cleaning. There are also resource inputs necessary for animal feed to raise the sheep (x)
Comparison
The most helpful resource I found comparing the impacts of acrylic and wool on the environment was “Environmental Improvement Potential of Textiles”, published in 2006 and authored by researchers from the European Commission’s Joint Research Committee, Bio Intelligence Service, and ENSAIT (École nationale supérieure des arts et industries textiles).
The document is quite long, but the part relevant to us here compares the impact of the production of one kilogram of a material (wool, acrylic, and others) based on raw material production and processing, pre-treatment (only for natural fibres), sizing, spinning, desizing, warping sizing, fabric formation, finishing, printing and dyeing and the end of-life treatment of stitching and warping. In other words, cradle to yarn. Alongside the relevant information and explanation, I’ve pulled some helpful figures from the research.
Energy use
Producing one kilogram of acrylic uses the same energy of burning almost 39 pounds of coal, or putting 76.4 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent into the atmosphere. Producing one kilogram of wool uses the energy produced from burning about 14 pounds of coal, or putting 28.1 pounds carbon dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere. Wool production uses only 36% the energy needed for acrylic production.
Climate change
As seen in figure 30, acrylic has a large CO2 equivalent footprint from production, more than polyester, cotton, viscose, etc.. This is because of the raw material production/processing (of crude oil) and all of the electricity needed to finish the fabric. Wool, of course, uses a electricity and energy from raising sheep to creating usable fiber, but ultimately less than acrylic.
Freshwater ecotoxicity
Ecotoxicity is the degree to which ecosystems are bothered or hurt by a stress factor, and acrylic also has a greater negative impact on fresh water ecotoxicity than wool, as seen in figure 32, mostly due to a water intensive dying process.
Human health
Regarding human health, acrylic is once again estimated to have a larger negative impact than wool, most likely due to the energy needed to produce the material, ie., burning fossil fuels for energy and the resulting greenhouse gases, ‘harmful substances’, and particles put into the atmosphere.
Considering energy use, CO2 equivalent emissions (global warming factor), effects on fresh water ecosystems and even human health, we can see that wool is a better choice than acrylic. Wool is also known to have antimicrobial qualities, be incredible warm, and can be very durable, although fear of itchiness and the cost point make it less viable for some. Acrylic, of course, also has it’s benefits; it is cheap, vegan, dryer safe, and while it can be itchy, doesn’t have that reputation.
There is one final factor to mention: use. As mentioned in this Forbes article, “fast fashion garments, which we wear less than 5 times and keep for 35 days, produce over 400% more carbon emissions per item per year than garments worn 50 times and kept for a full year.” In other words, no matter what you buy, it matters enormously that you use it and make good the resources used in production.
Remember to ask questions and consider overall impact when pursuing conscious living; there are a lot of factors to consider and the obvious choice isn’t always the best. Wishing you a warm autumn and winter, and happy zero wasting!
