Paint by Numbers
The Final Scoreboard for Sustainable Paint
Abstract
Paint impacts our planet. The unique combination of pigment, binders, and other additives that constitute this colorful substance play a pivotal role in shaping its overall environmental footprint. In this article series, we peered through the lens of three primary concerns (energy, waste, and equity) to compare how paint tainted the Earth in the 17th century during artistic Mecca of the Dutch Golden Age versus today. In the former period, artisanal, wind-powered oil paints were customary, while today’s paint marketplace is dominated by industrial-scale acrylics.
Throughout our investigation, we identified two important guideposts:
Processing raw materials contributes the most to environmental impact.
75% of the footprint of paint production exists within the supply chain rather than the actual manufacturing process itself.*
With these contours in mind, let’s identify the significant contrasts in paint sustainability across the ages.
Introduction
This series began with an awe-inspiring trip to Amsterdam, where my visit to a historic paint mill called De Kat in a district called Zaanse Schans caused me to wonder: “If we were to return to 17th century-style windmill manufacturing, would we be living in a more sustainable world?”
On a quest to answer this question, we uncovered the ingredients that make up paint and explored the steps required to transform them into the finished product. We analyzed the supply chain of modern acrylics and compared it to historical Dutch oil paints to truly understand whether a time machine would take us to a more sustainable world.
Using a magnifying glass of environmental impact, we examined the energy required, waste produced, and lives afflicted by various components and processes along the lifecycle. And now, its time to put numbers to the research to answer the question once and for all.
Results
Energy
Any solid assessment of sustainability requires an homage to energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. In a single sentence, for those unfamiliar with climate intricacies, the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) for energy usage releases greenhouse gases, which causes heat entrapment in our atmosphere (hence the “greenhouse” effect), which has all the negative impacts on our livelihoods (increased frequency and intensity of natural disasters, increase in vector-borne diseases, species loss, diminished agricultural productivity, etc. etc. etc.)
Relevant to this comparison, fossil fuel-derived energy did not power manufacturing until after the Industrial Revolution and the invention of the steam engine, rendering the energy footprint of historical paint significantly lower. Raw materials were processed by wind and the final paint product was crafted by hand, making even the "largest contributors to environmental impact" essentially net zero.
To the detriment of modern paint, cascades of the Industrial Revolution, including the chemical revolution and the green revolution of agriculture, further inflated the energy footprint of ingredients used in contemporary paint.
Modern Acrylics: 0 | Historical Oil-Based: 1
Waste
While some environmental analysts deem carbon the ultimate measure of sustainability, it doesn't always paint a complete picture (pun 100% intended). Waste products and non-biodegradability can degrade resources, threaten ecosystem health, and endanger biodiversity—plus if you didn’t know I’m an author of a book on the circular economy so of course I had to talk about waste.
During the Dutch Golden Age, paintings surged in popularity. The number of painters more than doubled, and they collectively produced between 5 and 10 million paintings (averaging about 11 per household). Despite the burgeoning social bubble of artists and art connoisseurs across classes, individual painters still regarded paint as a precious commodity, so they took care to minimize wasted material. Oil-based paints are also less susceptible to drying out than acrylics, resulting in less accidental wastage.
The biodegradability of raw materials is another pertinent consideration. By and large, historical oil-based paints could decompose organically while modern acrylics (with binders made of persistent plastics) require centuries to break down.
Modern Acrylics: 0 | Historical Oil-Based: 2
Equity
Social impact is deeply intertwined with sustainability. Corporate reporting and coalitions reflect this, as they work to ensure environmental sustainability initiatives authentically consider their impact on human health, labor conditions, employment opportunities, and environmental justice.
In a surprising twist, modern paint production seemed to edge out historical paint in terms of equity. Unethical pigment sourcing, heavy metal exposure, questionably immoral labor conditions, and enablement of the Transatlantic slave trade plagued Dutch production. On the other hand, safer conditions of modern factory labor just barely counterbalance the deleterious effects of carcinogenic ingredients and volatile organic compounds released from acrylic paint over time.
Modern Acrylics: 1 | Historical Oil-Based: 2
We did not explicitly discuss a concept integral to life cycle assessment in this analytical series: the reference flow. A reference flow essentially sets the standard for the amount, context, and performance of a specific product being compared, ensuring an equitable evaluation. For instance, determining how “paint” will be used and in what quantity is crucial for an apples-to-apples judgement. Is the paint used on a canvas or on an outdoor wall? Is it a full can’s worths of paint or a small tube’s worth? Is it blue or yellow paint? How opaque or transparent is the coverage? It would not be an honest contrast between the industrial masses of acrylic paint made today and small-batch artisanal oil paints in the 1600s, for example.
This series aimed to provide a generalized awareness rather than a deeply technical assessment, so I want to acknowledge there are confounding factors and assumptions that made the analysis less precise.
Conclusions
With that grain of salt, here are my “Lex Math” sustainability scores for both oil-based paint during the Dutch Golden age and modern acrylic paint, with positive scores indicating processes that have a neutral or positive effect on the environment and negative scores indicating processes that negatively affect on the environment:
The weighting of scores is based on the guideposts above, where 75% of environmental impact comes from supply chain and 25% comes from production itself. Feel empowered to reach out with queries on my methodology.
Recommendations
Armed with this information, I hope you gleaned some historical and scientific insights and feel comfortable making an informed decision when choosing to to opt for artisanal oil-based paints over acrylics. While the final results may be unsurprising, I hope you carry with you the complexity of the question “which is more sustainable,” and use the criteria I shared throughout this series to frame your thinking in future inquiries. As global citizens, we are all responsible for making decisions to promote our longevity on this Earth, and oblivion is not a valid excuse. While maybe imperfect, it is our duty to perform citizen science to elect sound choices in the interest of our future.
Acknowledgements
In addition to all the sources cited throughout this series, my generous artistic friends, and the village of Zaanse Schans for inspiring this deep dive, I extend thanks to all of you for indulging in your curiosity with me and being open-minded to such a niche, complex topic.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on how I could have made this exploration more digestible or delved even deeper. Share your thoughts in the comments below :)
*Data on energy use and other environmentally relevant variables only became available about five decades ago. Therefore, the assessment of the former period is based mainly on written accounts and inferences.
P.S. As a sustainability buff, I know that this space is somewhat siloed and constantly evolving. Being said, I welcome your fact-checking and feedback! Working together to improve our collective understanding of sustainability is the goal of my page!
P.P.S. The views in this article are my personal perspectives and do not necessarily reflect the view of my employer or any other person or entity.
Connect with me on LinkedIn & subscribe to my Substack.
Incredible work! #lexmath