Carbon footprints and Wine

This morning on NPR, there was an expert talking about carbon footprints of consumables. He mentioned wine and said that Bordeaux (and I assume he used that to generalize for all European wines) brought in New York left less of a carbon footprint than Californian wine because the latter has to be shipped by truck to the East Coast. The European wines makes it way to the East Coast by ship. Apparently Columbus, Ohio is the spot from which Californian wines would be more "eco-friendly". I generally don't think about these things when buying or drinking wines (I do recycle all my wine bottles though). But I thought it was never the less an interesting thought and because wine being such a global and profitable food item, is it time for consumers to be aware of these things? Interestingly I noticed that the Mendocino Wine Company claims it is the first Carbon Neutral Winery. Comments?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=19191249

As an East Coast Francophile, when a story about this came out a few months ago, I felt smug.

Reality of course is that Bordeaux is a bit of an exception, as it is a port town. I wonder if most Rhones, Burgundies, Champagne etc are trucked (I realize Rhone is navigatable, but river barges are much less used these days in general) a fair distance to port. I also wondered if no CA wine is shipped by rail, which would be more efficient. Probably not, non-bulk rail cargo is way down.

Certainly my beloved Piedmont wines must be trucked a fairly good distance to ports.

I try to reduce my carbon footprint when I can. But I am not yet advanced enough to buy wine I don't like in tetrapaks to reduce footprint (and then you of course have trash issues).

Similarly, we like sparkling water, so to try and be more responsible bought a seltzer siphon, which we love (we still buy some bottled seltzer, because we drink a lot of water and I don't feel like jumping up during dinner to recharge siphon). But I confess we also sometimes buy Badoit or Gerolsteiner, so I am nothing if not inconsistent.

So I sometimes do things to reduce footprint, sometimes don't. Fairly fanatical about recycling (and have a worm farm in basement to help compost). I am not a totally green person, but I think at least being somewhat conscious is better than complete oblivion.

PS: Carbon footprints are one good argument against the dreaded oversized bottle!

.... Interestingly I noticed that the Mendocino Wine Company claims it is the first Carbon Neutral Winery. Comments?

I don't believe there is any such thing as 'carbon neutral' in manufacturing of any product. Personally I do not believe that buying carbon credits makes you any better. It's a joke, really.
It's like - "we're big guys , we've got the money, we can buy credits from someone else, that makes us special".

What about the little guys, the small artisan prodcuers who are doing everything right and using less energy, but don't have the money to 'buy credits'. What about them?

Carbon footprints are one good argument against the dreaded oversized bottle!

Agree!

I agree Sue. The whole concept of giving industries Carbon Credits so that they have a license to pollute is ludicrous. But we will be soon seeing some "green" wines in the market. There are always someone who will cater to and profit from consumer guilt.
But I am all for responsible farming including grapes. Interestingly the article mentioned that New Zealand (they were talking about apples and not wine ) do a better job than most in this regard with better use of land, renewable energy, judicious use of fertilizers etc.

As with most things there is more to this than many consider. At a minimum, there is the impact of the farming aspect, the manufacturing aspect, and then the shipping. Rarely it seems does the media consider the entire chain. One of my favorite conflicts is that between organic farming and carbon footprint. In general, organic farming requires more spray opeations per season that result in using the tractor more times and thus increases the carbon footprint of the farming aspect. Also since the tractor is used more often the vineyard suffers more soil compaction which if left unattended results in a decreased fruit quality. To address the compaction results in even greater carbon footprint. Throughout the entire process there are conflict such as this as to the most environmentaly resposible course of action but then the media grabs one small aspect and runs with it.

%^)

I live in Arizona so I should only drink Arizona wine first and if I can't find what I want in Arizona, California wines second ...

Oh ... and I guess that would apply to other foods, too ? Mexican avocados, limes, and Winter vegetables, Chilean treefruit and grapes, Spanish clementine tangerines, Guatamalen raspberries, Australian navel oranges, New Zealand apples, canned Chinese peaches, canned Japanese mandarin oranges ... goodness ! I could go on and on ...

Clink !

%^)

Dale,

Bordeaux may be a port town, but the port is moribund.
The nearest major port is in the Médoc, in Le Verdon.
This was built with public money, and is a fine facility, but unfortunately never really took off.
It is woefully underused...

The bottle of wine you buy in New York was trucked to Le Havre (670 km.) and then shipped by boat.

Obviously, the notion of carbon footprint also includes many parameters.
Is Bordeaux more "natural" than California wine?
Gosh, I have no idea!

All I know is that irrigation is illegal here, so there's less waste.
But I would be hard put to say who uses more chemicals.

Best regards,
Alex R.