I am a big fan of Dr. Vino, like many other wine bloggers his was the first wine blog I read, and I still enjoy reading it. That being said, I have to disagree with his Op-Ed column in the Times.

I have no issue with the idea of wineries and wine consumers becoming more ecologically aware, and I am not enough of a snob to think that wine only has to come in a bottle. In fact, I have plugged the French Rabbit wines several times.

There are two issues I have with the column:

1. I'd like to see some evidence to back up his claims about the carbon footprint, in particular if the 3 liter boxes generate half the carbon footprint during shipping, then why wouldn't 3 liter bottle do the same?

2. 97% of wines are meant to be consumed within a year? Most winemakers I know claim that their reds can age 5-10 years or more and even their whites can age 2-3 years.

But, ultimately, I think his piece ignores a fundamental truism about wine: Wine is about the experience, the excitement of opening the bottle and trying something new. Boxed wine is the opposite of that, boxed wine is about sameness about making every box the same. It is assembly line wine making.

His claim is that switching to more boxed wine will help increase wine sales, but if there is no excitment, no anticipation, if it is the same as buying a 6-pack of Pabst, then how will that encourage more people to drink?

Instead of looking at new packaging, if you want to help reduce the carboon footprint of your wine consumption, buy more wine from local wineries. If your local wineries suck, encourage them to make better wine. Sound ridiculous? It is no more ridiculous then asking boxed wine makers to make better wine.