From Japan, observations about wine, carbon and classrooms
First time here? Check out the "site highlights," send in a question, subscribe to the latest posts by RSS, daily email, or free monthly updates by email (right sidebar). Thanks for visiting!
An MIT professor whose research focuses on energy and the environment is currently teaching Masters students in Sustainability Science at the University of Tokyo. He contacted my co-author and me about our research into the carbon footprint of wine since he wanted to assign his students the same task but tracking three bottles of wine to Tokyo instead of to Chicago, as we had done.
They tracked three hypothetical bottles from California, Australia and France and varied the mode of transport, with California going by air and the other two using shipping. Their results mirrored ours showing that the mode of transportation matters and that the mass of packaging also plays a role. Several students proposed that wine be shipped in bulk and bottled at the point of sale or consumption. He also added this detail:
The class discussion was concluded with an experimental component in which the students had the opportunity to sample a Yellowtail Cabernet Sauvignon (2005), Muscadet de Sevre and Maine (Loire, 2006), and a Ravenswood Zinfandel (2005, actually Sonoma + Mendocino but that is close enough to Napa). They agreed that (1) this made the assignment more interesting and (2) there are factors other than carbon emissions that should be taken into account when choosing wines.
I’m glad they enjoyed the research!
On a related note, the NYT ran a graphic with some of our findings in the excellent recent article, “Movable Feast Carries a Pollution Price Tag,” by Elisabeth Rosenthal.
One of the "seven best wine blogs." 
One of the three best wine blogs
On May 1st, 2008 at 10:25 am ,Ryan Penrod wrote:
Dr Vino has your research looked at how much carbon could be saved by changing the shape of the bottle? A long thin bottle will use more glass than a short fat bottle. So a short fat bottle should weigh less, and cost less carbon to transport.
On May 1st, 2008 at 3:21 pm ,Sam wrote:
Wow, MIT! Your research has raised eyebrows again and again, truly fantastic work.
On May 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 pm ,Dr. Vino wrote:
Hey Ryan,
It’s really mostly about the mass (weight).
TetraPak and other box wines reduce the weight of the packaging material but they also do increase the packing efficiency in the shipping container. But it’s really just about how much energy it takes to move that container and then how many GHGs (greenhouse gases) are emitted as a result of the energy used.
On May 5th, 2008 at 6:30 pm ,Neil wrote:
While I enjoyed your article on the carbon footprint of a bottle of wine, I would like to see the analysis carried throughout the entire lifecycle. The analysis considered the carbon footprint of the bottle of wine for it to be delivered from a winery to a particular location. The carbon footprint for that bottle does not stop growing there. The wine has to be purchased. How big is the carbon footprint for the purchase transaction? It depends on the price and how the money was earned. For fine and exotic wines, earning the money to purchase the wine may be the largest overall carbon contribution. This means all other things being equal, a wine costing several hundred dollars has a significantly larger environmental impact that a wine costing $10. I am not to saying that we should all stop drinking fine wine. I just think we should be aware of the total price we are paying.