In this era of ‘green’, I am intrigued by the carbon footprint of wine industry. As an agricultural product, grapes are relatively (or so I am told) low impact, especially when compared to row crops like lettuce, or grains such as wheat, barley, corn, etc. However, it still takes a great deal of energy to cultivate the spawn of the grapevine. And after the grapes are harvested, wine-making also takes a fair amount of energy — between keeping temperatures in check during fermentation, power to generate crusher/destemmers & presses, water usage for keeping things clean, and ultimately the bottling line itself.
But all of these can, and often do, have a low impact footprint. In fact, several wineries generate enough of their own energy to be self sufficient and off the grid. Others are quite water efficient and the waste is effectively recycled, and in general, the ability to be green within the ‘controllables’ is not only do-able, but done — which is a good thing. The net result is, or can be a relatively low carbon footprint.
But what about the uncontrollable items? Wineries can grow their own grapes, make their own wines, bottle them and sell them. But it is unrealistic to think that we can make our own glass for the bottles, process the paper for the cases we put the finished wine, manufacture our own closures, cork or otherwise, print our own labels, harvest wood & craft our own barrels — you get the picture. Glass & cardboard, at least, can be recycled. But what about the closures?
I wrestle with this. I use Nomacorc — a synthetic closure that does the one primary thing I want it to do — eliminate the threat of TCA (2,4,6-trichloroanisole). Frankly, I love this closure. It virtually exactly replicates the performance of a tree bark cork (traditional), but without the taint. And I can’t tell you how many wines I’ve made or been associated with that has had some level of taint that is attributable to only one thing — the cork.
But it is ’synthetic’ — a word associated with everything not ‘green’. So I’m looking for help here. Nomacorc is a synthetic that is produced in North Carolina & shipped to me in California. I have not been able to find a recycling program for this closure yet — but I understand that screw caps compromise the ability to recycle glass (this is anecdotal – no evidence yet) and as I understand it, bark based corks are a) highly processed with all sorts of non-green chemicals, b) shipped great distances from Europe using lots of fossil fuels, and c) still have an unacceptable degree of taint. And I’ve heard the arguments that there is a ‘tail’ to this issue — that if we stop using ‘real’ corks, the cork oak forests will be bull-dozed over in favor of buildings, resulting in more greenhouse gases, etc. That seems highly speculative to me – I suppose they could just as easily be bull-dozed to plant nutritious crops to feed the world — but who knows. It feels like ‘natural’ cork is better environmentally…but when you factor in everything…is it really? Does a ‘natural’ cork processed with chemicals and shipped half way around the world have a better environmental impact than a synthetic produced domestically? And how does that stack up against screwcaps? Are there other alternatives?
If anyone has an opinion on this, or has hard quantitative facts regarding the options, or can pass this on to others who might have answers — I’d welcome the dialogue. Meanwhile, cork taint drives me bonkers and until I can be convinced otherwise, and with due respect to Tommy and The Who, you know where to put the cork! And regardless of your closure — always drink charitably!
3 Comments
Judd:
As someone who works in the wine industry – with natural cork to be exact – I would like to share some thoughts.
You recently stated that, “bark based corks are highly processed with all sorts of non-green chemicals.” I am not sure where you got this information but it just isn’t correct. The production protocol in today’s modern cork industry is to use chlorine-fee water to boil, steam and otherwise clean the corks at various stages of production. Steam, as you probably know, is an effective weapon against TCA and other unwanted anisoles.
You also took issue with shipping cork from Europe and the “lots of fossil fuels” required. Considering the efficiencies of ocean-going container ships and relatively low carbon footprint represented by sea transport, this form of transportation is a good choice. It takes much more fossil fuel to manufacture a plastic stopper or aluminum screwcaps in comparison to manufacturing and shipping a natural cork closure.
You mention “unacceptable degrees of taint,” in natural corks. The US-based Cork Quality Council reports an 80% reduction in TCA since 2001. In addition, Dr. Pascal Chatonnet, one of the world’s leading scientist on the subject of wine taint, reported in 2007 that his laboratory results showed the incidence of TCA had declined from 4.9 per cent in 2003 to 0.2 per cent in 2006. Considerable progress has and continues to be made in reducing TCA to acceptable levels. The cork industry is not sitting on its hands.
Natural cork bark is harvested every 9 years during a tree’s nearly 200-year lifespan. The 7 million acres of cork forests that dot the Mediterranean basin represent an important natural resource and habitat for hundreds of plants and animals. Cork trees are essential in reducing the desertification of the region and act as an effective sink to retain millions of tons of CO2 each year. Maintaining these forests through environmental stewardship and sustainable practices continue to be a priority of the cork industry.
When you consider the energy and resources required to produce pound of plastic stoppers or an equal amount of aluminum screwcaps, natural cork continues to be an excellent closure of choice.
Thanks for the opportunity to share my opinion.
Roger — thanks for the comment — I appreciate creating a dialogue about this. I had the great fortune of visiting cork processing while working for Robert Mondavi & I do appreciate the efforts the natural cork industry is taking to improve quality. But as a winemaker, I still find bottle variance often in wines that are all from a single lot — with only one variable – the cork. Since posting this article, I have received some wonderful studies comparing the relative ‘carbon footprint’ of the various closures and find that natural cork does have the best footprint, followed closely by Nomacorc, and trailing far behind is the screwcap. I also see a concerted effort by both natural & synthetics to drastically improve from the current benchmark — all good. Now if we can just eliminate (not reduce) taint, I’ll be a happy man!
Again – thanks for the comment — hopefully the converation will continue.
Judd:
Yes, wouldn’t it be nice if we could eliminate, not just reduce TCA taint. Unfortunately TCA is ubiquitous in our environment. Packaged carrots, bottled water, coffee beans, puddings, chocolate, and other food products can and are tainted by the devil TCA. This is not an excuse, just an observation.
Wine taint is not always from cork, nor is it always TCA. That said, many “problems” with wine quality get blamed on the cork when, in fact, these problems may be from other sources. Calling a wine “corked” whenever there is a sensory problem is not fair to Mother cork. I did a survey not long ago at a major wine competition. I checked the wines returned as “corked” (approximately 6%) and discovered less than 1% were actually issues of TCA. The rest were a combination of Bret, TCB, TBA, and in some cases, marginal winemaking.
The precursors of TCA can be found in fireproofing and wood preservatives used on pallets and shipping containers, and in wineries themselves. Oak barrels can have TCA as well. Knowing this and taking corrective action is part of the solution. And changing the closure type may not always be the answer.
Bottom line: we are getting better at dealing with TCA. Less than 15 years ago winemakers and cork producers didn’t really know what caused TCA or how to eliminate it. Now that they do, it’s time to give cork another chance, especially in a market where “sustainable” and “natural” are becoming more important in consumer choice.
Cheers!
Post a Comment