Carbon Footprint of Wine

Thanks, Dr. Vino, for helping us CA producers out in National Geographic.

Sheesh.

The carbon footprint of wine in National Geographic - Dr Vino's wine blog Dr Vino's wine blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He writes that there is less footprint to ship wines from Sydney and Santiago to Chicago than from Napa, for instance. In addition, most of the routes he cites (from France, Oz, & Chile to the East, Midwest and west of the US) are less than or equal to the footprint from Napa to LA. Huh?

Among many things I have to say about this, probably #1 would be, how are wines from the wine-producing regions of these countries consolidated in the ports? By truck? Conveniently over-looked.

Throwing us under the bus.

Giant container ships are the most efficient means of transport by several orders of magnitude. It costs us MORE in $$$ to truck a case of wine to LA from Napa than to get it here from Livorno…that must be based on something.

Which would make this compelling if wine were made in Santiago or Sydney, but it ain’t. It’s a convenient place to start the meter, but how does it arrive in port from the bottling facility to make its way onto the gigantic container ships?

Very sloppy of Dr. Vino (must be a humanities type ). Burgundy, for example, would seem to be about as far from any seaport as Napa is from LA.

Nate, I am talking about the TOTAL cost of transport (and gas is a LOT more expensive in Europe, but they do use trains more than we do). I have no idea about the “carbon miles” but the money seems to indicate it takes less energy.

I know what you’re talking about but you are also equating $ with energy, which may or may not be the whole story.

I’m perturbed by the article b/c this is not going into some two-bit journal of “wine economists”, but National Frickin’ Geographic. and it’s comparing me driving a single bottle to Chicago in my car and hand-delivering it with a container ship coming from somewhere else in addition to neglecting how wine gets to port in other countries. In addition to ignoring that the largest US wine producers use trains for distribution extensively and assuming that all is done by truck strictly.

Maybe the article advocates that Cali wine be sent on ships to the east coast passing through the Panama Canal. That’s still closer than a ship coming from Sydney no?

Nate, if it is any consolation to you, a previous thread on this elsewhere came up with data that over 80% of the energy involved in almost ANY bottle of wine is wrapped up in making the GLASS so we are arguing about the tail, not the dog. Tetrapacs anyone?

Again, I know. You know. Not discussed in the previous paper, nor presumably in this one. Strictly transport.

Edit: Actually, looking at the original working paper, glass was discussed. It doesn’t sound as though it will be included in Nat Geo, though.

I do need consoling once this issue comes out…Nat Geo, with a worldwide circulation (cite: Wikipedia) of 50,000,000+. Another knife in our collective back when we really don’t need it.

The problem is, it seems to be advocating that someone in NY or Chicago or even LA really shouldn’t be drinking US wine. France, Chile, and Oz are all apparently “greener” substitutes.

I never understood any of this carbon footprint stuff. I’m a 12 1/2 “D”. What the hell am I supposed to do about that?

A few comments on the above graphic from Dr. Vino’s site (linked in the OP)…

First, as Nate noted, the wine imported from overseas first must get from the winery to the port and this transport contribution to the carbon footprint is ignored. Taking Burgundy as an example, it is about as far from Bordeaux (or any other seaport) as Napa is from LA, so it would seem reasonable to expect that this terrestrial leg of the Burgundy bottle’s transit would have a carbon footprint similar to that of a Napa bottle traveling to LA. The graphic assigns a value of 0.5 lb CO2 equivalent for Napa to LA, so let’s add that figure to the total for a bottle of Burgundy… this increases the total footprint to NYC from 0.3 to 0.8 lb; the total to Chicago from 1.5 to 2.0 lb; and the total to LA from 3.0 to 3.5 lb.

And there is something curious about the data plotted in the figure. The graphic shows a value of 4.4 lb CO2 to get a bottle from Napa to NYC, but indicates only 2.7 lb to get a bottle from the port in NYC to LA (against a headwind, no less)…

Finally, quantitative graphics guru Edward Tufte would surely ding this chart for displaying the data in a way that is visually misleading. The chart designers intend to indicate the amount of CO2 required for transit by the thickness (width) of the line. But the eye sees the total area (length as well as width) of ink (color) used for each line, and the lines that are longer as well as thicker thus tend to have a total area that is disproportionally much greater than the simple numeric difference… the difference between Napa-LA and Napa-NYC is grossly exaggerated by this error.

if I follow this, a ship leaves Sydney headed easterly at 17 knots. At the same time a ship leaves Chile heading north at 16 knots…at what time do they collide in the fog off the Farralon Islands?

I think you nailed it.

PG&E sends us a lot of propaganda with this sort of data since we signed up for the energy audit. They never factor in the offset from the acreage of our vines though.

Nate,

Take this from a newspaper and magazine freelance writer, letters work.

Send a letter to Nat Geo quickly. To support your claim against the obvious bias in the information, I suggest you use the stuff that Mr. Wright posted .

Other than that, you’ll have to live with it, and that has always been a distasteful thing for this rebel-rouser!

To be perfectly honest, I don’t think that the Antinori family would appreciate me sticking my nose into it.

I will have to choose self-preservation and live to fight another day…I encourage all those who are self-employed (and I use that term very loosely) COUGH to do so.

Size of the Carbon Footprint? What is the size of your Santa Clause? What is the size of your Easter Bunny?

The analysis in the story is as bogus as the flimsy foundation upon which the faux science of man-made global cataclysm rests. Rather than asking whether mine is bigger than yours, maybe we should be asking whether size really matters.

If someone buying my wine (or, more accurately, not buying it because of stories like this) cares, then I care.