Really?

Frankly, I don't see this factoring into my wine buying decisions anytime soon. Apologies if someone else has already posted (I looked at recent threads and didn't see anything):

http://www.slate.com/id/2229095/?GT1=38001

Krysten, Hi....

Nor do I see this as having anything to do with relevance on my wine/beverage buying habits. I know that some will disagree with me, but I see the entire concept of "carbon footprints" as pure and unadulterated political correctness and in that, no less diluted bovine feces.

I do, however, adore the people who are concerned with such issues. I would wager that many of their ancestors were also concerned about the social-moral implications of future of the dodo bird.

Best
Rogov

Krystyn,

I don't factor carbon footprint considerations into my drink buying decisions. Indeed I'm getting thoroughly turned off by the earnest bullying from anti-global warming activists. This may be irresponsible and it is certainly Politically Incorrect. However, I bet that similar emotions are behind the surprising result in a recent UK poll which shows that more people now than a few years are sceptical about carbon emissions being responsible for global warming.

Indeed, to continue speculating in an irresponsible vein, the most damaging emissions may be coming from activists who are full of sh*t.

Though I don't consciously factor carbon footprint into my wine buying habits, it's also true that many of the wineries I tend to prefer (often eco/bio) employ practices that are less environmentally deleterious, such as eschewing mechanized harvesting/cultivation and petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides, all of which contribute greenhouse gases. This is an ex post facto rationalization, however, and I'd still buy those wines even if it weren't true.

Mark Lipton

OK, while I don't use CF as a major factor in my winebuying, I think the Cheneyesque dismissal of the weight of scientific opinion is wrong and sad. I don't think that no one should fly or drive a car, that I should only buy tetrapak'ed wine because it's lighter, etc. But if modern man was a bit more thoughtful about his impact on the enviroment, it would be a good thing IMHO. So given my druthers I'll buy a normal bottle instead of a clunky 4 pounder, I'll drive a Corolla (and walk when I can) rather than an Escalade, think consciously about combined trips, etc.

plus what Mark said.

What a lot of hog-wash! This article is poorly written on many levels.

"—and can travel a long way from the vineyard to your dinner table. The British study estimates that about 35 percent of wine's emissions stem from distribution."

It is cheaper in food miles to ship a container of wine from Central Otago to the UK than it is to send it by 40 ton truck from Italy. Although it does go on to address that shortcoming in the original study.

"helps preserve threatened forests and their attendant ecosystems."

This is a hoary old chestnut. The linked article mentions yet again the plight of the Iberian Lynx. Which is under threat, true, but not from the destruction of the cork oak forest. This is down to ONE man, the one who released myxomatosis into the wild to kill the bunnies that were chomping on his vegetable patch.

"Plus, once the box is opened, the wine inside stays drinkable for much longer than it would in a bottle."

Maybe it does, but the shelf life of a box of wine is measured in months not years as for glass. Or even maybe aluminum.

Mine is a general comment - I didn't read the link (I'm not keen on following links without an explanation of what it's likely to link me to).

I'm 100% for reducing waste, pollution and for us learning to treat the planet and it's inhabitants with the care and consideration necessary. Doing so is hardly likely to be a bad thing.

However those marketing tw*ts who just see it as an opportunity to sell more stuff whilst paying lip-service (at best) to the environment... well I'll join the angry mob when it comes to running those folk out of town.

regards

Ian

"helps preserve threatened forests and their attendant ecosystems."

This is a hoary old chestnut. The linked article mentions yet again the plight of the Iberian Lynx. Which is under threat, true, but not from the destruction of the cork oak forest. This is down to ONE man, the one who released myxomatosis into the wild to kill the bunnies that were chomping on his vegetable patch.

You are right, the Iberian Lynx is a red herring (so to speak), but "cork forests" are important for many other species.

Mine is a general comment - I didn't read the link (I'm not keen on following links without an explanation of what it's likely to link me to).

Sorry, Ian - I probably should have given a bit more info alongside the link, especially since I feel the same as you do about linked material. Just got lazy Also wondering if maybe Friends and Fun would have been a more appropriate forum.

I think this article is just another example of a "journalist" trying to milk the climate change issue for material. Can't think of anything newsworthy? Link something, anything, to climate change. The movement is still "popular" enough that you'll get some miles out of it (just not carbon miles, please). Personally, I prefer the old concept of "global warming" to the newer "climate change". With global warming, I'd be at the beach right now instead of sitting inside on the internet.

Not to get into a political discussion, but carbon dioxide is not pollution and is not warming or killing the planet. In fact if there was no carbon dioxide on earth we wouldn't be worried with global warming-- not because it wouldn't exist but because we all would be dead. Every plant, animal, and most microscopic organisms would become extinct.

Like all plants, vines that produce grapes also take-in carbon dioxide and give-off oxygen. Therefore, wine should start with a negative carbon footprint from the get-go. Also, if the vines weren't there, what might be there instead? Homes, businesses, roads? Furthermore, farmworkers typically live relatively close to the acreage they farm so drive shorter distances. Finally, these farms are typically in fairly remote areas with much less traffic. So even if 10 miles away, a worker might be in the car for 15 minutes one-way, where driving 10 miles in the city might have the worker in the car for an hour or more one-way. Even if manmade global warming caused by CO2 production was true, which it is not, the "opportunity cost" as it relates to carbon emissions of not having these vineyards is likely much larger than the carbon generated in the farming, fermentation, and trucking processes.

This carbon emission stuff is nothing more than the government creating a tax on air. I never would have thought our country would have become so crazy that we would actually put-up with such nonsense. I guess I'll find out for sure in the next few months.

Jack,

Aside from the fact that I agree with your political stance here, I think that your points regarding the net effect of vineyards being positive is an interesting and quite probably legitimate one. You should reply to the author of that article with your thoughts!

K

Is nothing sacred? Vineyards probably already have the most environmentally friendly practices in all of agriculture.

I have never lost any sleep, nor will I ever, over this issue. That said, for inexpensive wines, I think the plastic bottles with screw caps are probably a good idea for other reasons, and if they reduce the "carbon footprint" through reduction in energy spent in shipping, more power to them. But what's best for the wine comes first, always, always, always.

Vines, like any other plant, are essentially (i.e. apart from the work we put into them) carbon neutral. They absorb CO2 when growing, but after they die they give out all the CO2 they took in. In the case of wine, the CO2 is put back in the atmosphere when it ferments.

The only exception, I guess, are the plants that eventually got fossilised, which conveniently captured all the carbon that we are now releasing.

As to whether man-made global warming is a reality - isn't that a scientific question rather than a political one? I would hope so at least.

Vines, like any other plant, are essentially (i.e. apart from the work we put into them) carbon neutral. They absorb CO2 when growing, but after they die they give out all the CO2 they took in. In the case of wine, the CO2 is put back in the atmosphere when it ferments.

It's somewhat more complicated than that, Steve. Plant growth can sequester carbon by means of soil formation. In a healthy ecosystem, the roots of deceased plants are consumed by worms that in turn transform the organic matter of plant roots to humus. The above-ground portions are either consumed by mold and bacteria or by larger organisms (in which case they are excreted as manure and recycled into growing plants) and can also contribute to soil formation. In the end, this is the value of forests: they sequester CO2 through respiration, eventually fixing it as organic matter in topsoil.

Regarding the scientific vs. political elements of global warming: would that you were right, but earlier posts in this thread prove otherwise.

Mark Lipton

Vines, like any other plant, are essentially (i.e. apart from the work we put into them) carbon neutral. They absorb CO2 when growing, but after they die they give out all the CO2 they took in. In the case of wine, the CO2 is put back in the atmosphere when it ferments.

It's somewhat more complicated than that, Steve. Plant growth can sequester carbon by means of soil formation. In a healthy ecosystem, the roots of deceased plants are consumed by worms that in turn transform the organic matter of plant roots to humus. The above-ground portions are either consumed by mold and bacteria or by larger organisms (in which case they are excreted as manure and recycled into growing plants) and can also contribute to soil formation. In the end, this is the value of forests: they sequester CO2 through respiration, eventually fixing it as organic matter in topsoil.

If it continues to be fixed in the soil, is not that what would eventually become a potential fossil fuel?

What normally happens the non-grape bits of vines BTW? Are not the shoots and leaves normally burned? I suppose some places, e.g. biodynamic vineyards, make compost.

In case it is not obvious, I do very much think that man-made global warming is a reality, and that "something must be done" - not from the perspective of a tree-hugging environmentalist - I see it as enlightened self interest. Having said that, fretting about the difference in carbon footprint between a cork and a screwtop is not going to save or damn the world, and I agree the article was rather silly. I think we should get on with enjoying pleasures like a glass or wine or three while we tackle the issues that are really going to make an impact.

I'm not a botanist nor am I trying to be argumentative, but I don't think all CO2 taken in by a plant over its lifetime is returned to the atmosphere after its death. Plants use CO2 to make sugars for growth and development. CO2 bonds with H2O making CH2O, giving off O2 (oxygen). It is true that at night, plants can give-off CO2. Dead plants can give-off CO2 as well. However, most CO2 would be utilized by the plant during its lifetime.

As far as releasing CO2 during fermentation, this is a byproduct of yeast and sugar, not plants. If you mix sugar and water and add yeast, the yeast will eat the sugar and give off alcohol and CO2. If you extracted all (most) sugar from grapes and then crushed and added yeast, you would get no alcohol or CO2.

As far as manmade global warming is concerned, I don't believe it. Neither do many scientists (I'm not a scientist). My reasons are simple. 30 years ago, we were barreling toward a manmade ice age. I was a gullible teenager and believed that stuff. There was no ice age, but the government monkeyed around with all sorts of stuff like the ban on R-22 refrigerant, which will take place in 2010. 20 years ago, a major earthquake was going to hit on the New Madrid fault. Memphis was going to be leveled. I had gotten wise by then and proclaimed I would go to the top of the highest building in Memphis on the day the earthquake was supposed to hit. I'm still here so no, the earthquake didn't shake me to pieces, but the guy who made all of those predictions and made tons of money on newsletters and doomsday earthquake stuff skipped the country. The pattern is pretty easy to follow. It's simply follow the politics, follow the money. There is always some beneficiary. My other skepticism toward manmade climate change is because it ignores all the non-manmade stuff-- like that exploding ball of fire 93 million miles away, which keeps our planet at an average temperature of around 58 deg. F instead of something like -450 deg. F if there was no sun; or like the oceans which cover 2/3rds of our planet's surface and store heat much more so than does land or air; or like volcanoes; or like the tilt of the earth, etc., etc. Climate change can't have anything to do with any of those things. It must be that man is introducing some miniscule amount of CO2 into our atmosphere, an atmosphere which is less than 3% CO2 in the first place and was less than 3% before we started burning fossil fuels. And of all things it has to be CO2, which plants use in photosynthesis thereby releasing oxygen for us to breathe.

People are free to believe what they want. If people feel good because they believe they are helping the planet by trying to control their CO2 output, that's probably a good thing. They feel good about themselves. I just don't want it crammed down my throat, especially by an author making ludicrous statements about wine's carbon footprint, knowing there is some ulterior motive. Who knows, maybe the guy wants to start a wine boycott because of all the CO2 generated. Maybe he's hoping the decrease in demand will cause wine prices to fall so he get some good stuff cheap... Maybe I should get off my soapbox and jump on the bandwagon.

Jack

I broadly agree with you about that particular article on wine. Let's get the positive bit over with first

However...

The sugar you get from grapes (or anything for that matter) does actually come from plants. You cannot separate it out and pretend it is different. The CO2 goes into the sugar, and other bits, and then it comes out of the sugar during fermentation. Most of the other bits of vine I reckon are usually burned to give off CO2, and IIRC some forms of decay also yield CO2. I accept, as Mark pointed out, that some CO2 will get fixed in the soil. With vines I reckon it would be a very small amount - a larger amount on forest floors.

As to global warming in general, I am not sure this is the right place for detailed debate, but I would just ask that you keep your mind open to evidence on the particular issue, and I will too.

Forget the stories about the impending ice age. Just because scientists screwed up 30 years ago does not mean to say they are wrong now - science has moved on a heck of a lot and we have generated a lot more CO2 in the intervening years.

Also I would point out that although many scientists do not believe in global warming, the vast majority do. I do not think a referendum amongst scientists is a good way to determine truth, but when you see such a large and increasing consensus coming out in favour of global warming you have to take notice.

For details of the scientific consensus on climate change, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change ,
You might like to compare it with a list of dissenting scientists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... al_warming

True, sugar comes from plants. My point is that it is not the plant that releases CO2 during fermentation, nor the fruit, but the sugar. If my chemistry is right (it’s been a long time, so no promises here), every molecule CH2O created by the bonding CO2 and H2O during a plant’s entire lifetime would have to be stored and then exposed to O2 resulting in a reaction creating a new CO2 and a new H2O molecule. Though I believe this reaction occurs, I don’t believe plants store every CH2O molecule they make their entire lives. These molecules feed the plants enabling growth-- new molecules of whatever fibers the plants are made of. Even during the fermentation process, all sugar is not converted to CO2 and alcohol. When the sugar content is too high, yeast is killed by the high concentration of alcohol before it can convert all of the sugar. If the yeast can survive the alcohol content, it will still starve before all sugar is converted. There is always some small amount of residual sugar even in dry wines. There are also sugars which yeast are unable to ingest. If plants returned all CO2 taken in over their lifetimes, CO2 levels in the atmosphere would be inversely proportionate to the amount of vegetation on the planet.

I believe you hit the nail on the head when you said, “Science has moved on a heck of a lot….” Science is a moving target. 1,000 years ago, people believed and even proved through the scientific methods of the day that rats were generated from grain (spontaneous generation). George Washington had leeches applied because the science at the time was to remove the “sick” blood from a patient. 30 years ago science said there was a new ice age coming. Today, it is global warming. 30 years from now, it will be something different. I’m not knocking science. In fact, I love science. However, I take science for what it is and realize that today’s scientist is tomorrow’s witch doctor. It has always been that way and will always be that way.

We could argue the numbers and credentials of scientists believing or not believing in global warming, but the fact is there are plenty on both sides. Here’s a couple of links to those not so convinced about global warming.

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php (several Leonard Weinstin articles)
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Lastly, I think we all agree the article was dumb. I doubt anyone participating on a wine forum would quit drinking wine because they were so shaken-up by that article. I must confess, I have a sourwood mead in secondary fermentation right now, with noxious CO2 bubbling out of the airlock. What can I say? I’m a conservative, Christian, capitalist, who is killing our planet just so I can enjoy fine adult beverages.