My least favorite Thanksgiving wine article
is this one:
These differences in emissions factors mean that distance isn't always the key factor in determining which wine has the lowest footprint for a given location. If you live in San Francisco, you can get your wine from the many California vineyards; but if you live in New York, it may be more environmentally friendly to buy wine sent by container ship from Bordeaux to a port in New Jersey than to buy American with a wine from Napa Valley, which would be trucked across the country.
A wine shipped straight from Bordeaux would have to be trucked to Columbus, Ohio, before it matched the greenhouse gas impact of a Napa Valley wine trucked to the same point. This is known as the breakeven point between the two wines, and Colman and Päster actually calculated a "green line" down the middle of the United States that marks the point at which a shipped wine and trucked wine would have the same carbon footprint..
Why does this dichotomy have to exist? As we all know, there are great wines grown in New York, if you are serious about the carbon footprint of your wine, why not drink locally made wines? Don't get me wrong, you all know I love a good Bordeaux and think everyone should have a couple around.
But, if you are going to be serious about minimizing the carbon footprint of your wine you have to include the idea of drinking local wines and you have to take into account the sustainability practices of the vineyard/winery. Otherwise you are just engaging in a practice designed to make you feel better, not have a real impact.
Labels: Bordeaux, carbon footprint, sustainability, Thanksgiving