“You take a bottle and you empty the bottle, and my God, why would that only be a one-time bottle?” Stephens tells the Journal. He points to the lost era of bottle washing in milk bottles, beer bottles and even Coke bottles.

Reusing a bottle is an important way to reduce wine’s carbon footprint. In a paper I co-authored on the subject, we found that the manufacture and delivery of empty bottles to the winery accounted for anywhere from about half to three-quarters (depending on bottle weight) of the carbon dioxide emissions of a wine locally produced and consumed, taking into account all of production and delivery phases, including the vineyard and winery operations. Recycling is good since in introduces a closed loop. But reusing is better since the energy demands are so much less than recycling.

While the amount of bottles that Wine Bottle Renew can clean in a day still is a drop in the bucket of California’s wine production, it’s good to see that industry heavyweights Kendall Jackson and Sutter Home have invested in the company, which may indicate eventual broader usage.

Obviously, there isn’t a standard shaped wine bottle today as there was for milk or Coke back in the day. But what do you think: if it encouraged reuse, would you favor wine bottle standardization? I would, especially if the bottles were lighter (14- to 19-ounces). Sparkling wine producers could be the first adopters since there is little variation among their bottles, the heaviest in the wine trade.

“For New Wine, Vintage Bottles” [WSJ]

With so little space on the label, the graphic and number are helpful for a cursory indication. But it would be even more useful if carbon-label.org provided more information about the calculations. Hopefully the estimates will be conservative since, as my own research has shown, the mode of transportation matters as much or more than the actual distance traveled, making it difficult to put one number on a bottle for countries as big as Australia or the US, where a lengthy truck journey can add more to the GHG calculations than an even longer sea voyage.

Providing the methodology is acceptable, it is a step in the right direction. Given that wines entered in the Air New Zealand Wine Awards must now be certified “sustainable”, perhaps the industry will similarly provide some sort of carrot for other wineries to adopt carbon emissions labeling.

See the full label after the jump.

No, it’s not as if officials Arizona have implemented a bottle deposit law that would increase recycling and/or reuse while raising millions of dollars for state coffers.

This is a voluntary recycling program called Sustainable Packaging Solutions profiled on AZdailysun.com. Starting November 1, a group will debut a white and a red under the label Kind Vines, exclusively at Bashas’, a grocery store. Brought in from California in bulk, the wines will be bottled locally where the bottles will also be cleaned and refilled.

Are you into this idea, in theory? Have your say in the latest poll!

Video follows below, as well as a cameraphone pic from the set!

Here are the box wines we had on the set (search for these wines at retail):

Wineberry box (Domaine Le Garrigon, Cotes du Rhone)
From the Tank (Eztezargues, Cotes du Rhone)
Big House red
Yellow + Blue malbec

Related: “Drink Outside the Box” [NYT]

Do you want a self-serve tank that dispenses low-priced wines in a store near you? Apparently a ton of people do as lots of non-wine sites linked to a recent post here, hundreds of people commented via twitter, and over 5,250 people “liked” it on Facebook.

The reception was very positive with many comments akin to “I am moving to France–TOMORROW.” or “I want one of these in my kitchen.” Perhaps the ultimate compliment came from New York magazine which put the tanks on their approval matrix in the “highbrow-brilliant” quadrant in today’s magazine. The only thing more brilliantly highbrow was the Paris Review putting their entire archive of author interviews online! (Good thing they didn’t see a subsequent here about pairing wine with bacon doughnuts–oh wait, that dish came from them!)

Why do you think this post resonated so much, particularly outside of the wine world? I think that part of it had to do with the fact that Americans are really getting into wine but can certainly do with out the pompousness. Also, it is kind of a Nirvana to find a fountain of good, cheap wine. There’s certainly the environmental angle too. And then it is also just a little bit zany.

But for whatever reason, the enthusiasm for the posting shows an appetite for such dispensers in the US. Who will be the first to implement this here–Whole Foods? Trader Joe’s? Safeway? Binny’s? Whoever it is (and one person in the industry tells me he’s working on it), they can certainly be assured a lot of media coverage.

Keg wine and wine vending machines just got supersized: 500 and one-thousand liter tanks have landed in French supermarkets.

Bring your own resealable bottles, Poland Spring containers, jerrycans, whatever. Or you can get one at the store. Select your grade (red, white, or rosé). Pump. Print receipt.

Astrid Terzian introduced this concept that hearkens back to a bygone era when wine would arrive in Paris shops in tonneaux and consumers would bring their own flagons to fill. But today, Terzian says, she started this scheme in fall 2008 to fill a niche, tapping into two key themes, environmental awareness and the economy. (She actually wanted to buy a wine property and run a B&B but it was too expensive. So she turned to what she says she knew how to do: sales.) The elimination of packaging mass means that the wine can be shipped much more efficiently from a cost and carbon perspective.

The cost-savings are passed on to the consumer in the form of low prices of 1.45 euros/liter (about $2/liter). She installed her first machine in June 2009 at the Cora supermarket in Dunkirk and now has them installed in eight supermarkets in France. The wines vary; one is a 2009 from the Rhone, technically a vin de pays méditerranée.

As to customer reaction, Terzian says customers are taken aback at first, but then warm up to the idea, especially after a taste. They come back often, she says.

Asked via email which is her favorite container to bring to fill, she says she uses a five-liter jug since it is “neither too big nor too small–and it’s typically French.”

UPDATE: I neglected to mention in the post that I think this, regulations permitting, will come to the US within a year. I told that to someone in the wine trade today. And he replied that he is already working on it!

UPDATE 2: My only question about the pump wine (aka Chateau La Pompe) is if it comes to New Jersey and Oregon, will they require full serve as they do for gas?!

La Cuve, Réserves Précieuses

Thus physics is a main challenge of reducing the bulk the Champagne bottle. A detailed story in today’s NYT Business section traces the development of a new, lighter bottle, slimmed down to 835g from 900g. The bottle has taken years to design and the Champagne Trade Council (CIVC) is encouraging its members to use it starting with this harvest, all in the name of reducing the wine’s greenhouse gas emissions. The lighter bottle means 2,400 more bottles can be fit in the same sized truck, thus reducing the amount of trips needed. That also saves producers costs, although industry figures in the story say that the bottle is not cheaper–unless it is widely adapted, which would drive down costs.

“Champagne Producers Aim for ‘Greener’ Bottle” (with slideshow)

cropped photo attributed to Stéphane Lavoué for the International Herald Tribune

But one category that seems woefully underrepresented stateside is rosé. Given that it is perhaps the quintessential “here today, gone tomorrow” kind of wine, it seems particularly well-suited for the bag-in-box format. Fridges across France are stocked with box rosé in the summer; it’s almost a summer rite to come in from a warm day and squeeze off a nice cold one (rosé, that is). And, it’s clinically proven that having a box of rosé is also a great way to make friends with any passersby since it’s always cold and is likely a tremendous value.

Last week I was on vacation and wished I had a box of rosé in the fridge. But I couldn’t find one. Fortunately, we had some of the snappy Chateau de Roquefort, “Corail” 2009 from the Cotes de Provence. Maybe next summer, I’ll be able to squeeze off a glass when I’m on vacation?

Last year, a reform bottle bill passed–largely unnoticed–that included significant changes, notably extending the deposit to include water containers and sport drinks. Further, and more importantly, the system for unredeemed deposits was redirected to send 80% of those funds to the state’s Department of Finance; previously, unredeemed funds rested with the deposit initiators (often beer and soda distributors). This long-overdue reform will bring in an estimated $90 million this year to the state.

But at five cents per container, the deposit remains low, unchanged since the program started in 1982. During the first decade of the bottle bill, redemption rates hovered around 80%. As inflation has eroded the value of the deposit amount, the redemption rate has fallen (details in this pdf).

Raising the deposit rate to ten cents (about even with inflation) even twenty cents per container would have the effect of raising recycling rates and raising revenues for the state through unclaimed redemptions. In 2006 (before water and sport drink bottles were included), deposits collected totaled $289 million while $196 million were redeemed, a 67.8% rate. Doubling the per bottle deposit to 10 cents, would mean $600 million in deposits, while raising the rate to 20 cents would gross $1.2 billion. Even assuming that were to bring the redemption rate back to 80 percent, that would still result in an additional $96 million or $192 million in uncollected deposits for the states coffers. (Raising the state’s share of unredeemed deposits to 90% or higher, would boost state revenues even further.)

That’s a kind of win-win we don’t see too often in Albany. And one that legislators and the governor could proudly raise a glass to.

Related: “Should a bigger better bottle bill include wine bottle deposits?”

The Oregon vintner shipped his 2007 Pinot Noirs in bottles weighing 900g, more than the 750g of wine in the bottle. But for his 2008s, which are being released soon, the bottles will weigh 600g (both bottles, pictured right). Needless to say, the reduced packaging mass greatly reduces the carbon footprint of the wine.

“The time has passed that you can try to impress people with the substance of the bottle as opposed to what is in the bottle,” he said.

He also thought it odd to import tons of empty glass bottles from France, so started sourcing his bottles locally. One new facility near Portland is getting underway making recycled glass from hydro-electric power. Currently, he is sourcing the glass from Seattle. Other vintners in the area are also taking steps to make their bottles more lightweight, he said.

Here at the Dr. Vino World Headquarters, we raise an ultralight crystal stem of Willamette Valley Pinot Noir in their honor!

Given that Pontet-Canet is one of the rare properties in the Médoc (and Bordeaux, generally), I also asked the Twitterverse for their theories on why there isn’t more grape growing in the region done according to Biodynamics (a sort of homeopathic method guided by the celestial). Here are their <140 character replies, in chronological order of response:
@mrmansell: maybe bordeaux doesn’t need the gimmick to move wine?
@TimAtkin: It costs money. And would reduce profitability. Also it’s seen as Burgundian.
@JancisRobinson: In BDX commerce rules – v anti beard/sandal ethos. Plus, Atlantic rains bring extra problems. Ask A Tesseron at Pontet Canet.
@JossNOTJosh: Size of properties. 0.5 ha of Pommard much easier than 50 ha of Pauillac.
@waterintowino: maybe bordeaux wines arent as transparent and nuanced to show diff in biodynamics
@newbordeaux: I agree with Jancis and Joss – size of estates and climate here make it very difficult. But there are increasing numbers trying.
@kcoleuncorked: Because it’s not an area known for on-site, hands-on vignerons & small estates.

And the note from Alfred Tesseron of Pontet-Canet:

We started biodynamie for 14 hectares in 2004, in 2005 we did 100% on 81 hectares (200 acres), which is the total vineyard of Pontet-Canet so also for the vintage 2006.

In 2007 we had a strong pressure of mildew. I got scared that we might lose the crop and we used chimicals for one week. As soon as the pressure of mildew was over, we went back to biodynamie. From that experience, we learned and went back 100% for 2008 and also for 2009; We will receive sometime this year the certificate from ECOCERT. We are also with BIODIVIN.

Related: “2007 vintage verbatim: Nicolas Joly on biodynamics“

I’ve often asked why and replies generally come in the form of the producer’s desire to have the wine liked for the quality as opposed to the methodology per se. Or, where organic in spirit, a common reply has been a dislike for administrative costs of filing and/or wanting to maintain the flexibility to spray if necessary.

An academic paper presents findings that may not lead to more eco-labeling: Certifying a winery as organic or Biodynamic will raise the price of wine 13 percent but putting that on the label will see the price fall by 20 percent.

Magali Delmas and Laura Grant, of UCLA and UCSB respectively, examined 13,400 California wines from an eight-year period ending in 2005 to reach their conclusions, which will appear in a forthcoming issue of the journal Business & Society. It’s certainly possible to quibble with their data: only 28 of the all-California wineries were certified and only 16 of the wines in the data set received the eco-labeling. The wines were expensive (about $37 a bottle) and the quality bump, as measured by WS scores, was slight (less than one point) as well as low, scoring less than 84.

They explain the premium for certification largely as the good will recognition akin to club membership. It would be interesting if they could explore quality further as I think that could be more convincing than the social effect in explaining the premium.

To explain the discount for labeling, they cite various winemakers who say that “organic” remains a stigma in the eyes of consumers. Such a comment seems oddly disconnected with the current era of Whole Foods and local and sustainable foods; younger consumers don’t see it as a stigma, I’d venture to say.

Part of the reason for the discount, they argue, is consumer confusion over the various labels and certifications, particularly since so few wines qualify for the organic standard, thus only qualifying for the looser “made from organically grown grapes” standard. They also show that consumers have little knowledge of Biodynamics with only 17 percent of respondents in a previous study being familiar with the term and only eight percent having tried a Biodynamic wine. (Of the respondents who were unfamiliar with the term, the single largest response as to what it meant was that it was genetically engineered or modified.)

What do you think–why is there an apparent discount for eco-labeling as opposed to eco-certification?

Delmas, M. and Grant, L. Forthcoming. “Eco-labeling Strategies and Price-Premium: The Wine Industry Puzzle.” Business and Society. (pdf)

Styrofoam is popular with retailers and wineries shipping wine because it cradles and insulates the bottles. While it is ultralight, thereby reducing the carbon footprint of the shipment, it essentially never biodegrades. I always try to bring my Styro shippers back to a store so that they can be used again before their life taking up space in a landfill. One store, Grapes the Wine Company, actually includes a pre-paid label so consumers can return the empty box back to the store via Fedex for reuse and a store credit. Corrugated cardboard inserts are recyclable but they are quite heavy, increasing the carbon footprint. Pulp inserts are light and biodegradable.

The plastic sleeves that Astor uses, branded as Air-Paq, are both light and recyclable (though they are resin code 7, which many municipalities don’t recycle). Their staff inserts the bottles in the sleeve, then use a gizmo to inject the air and seal the sleeve (you can see a scintillating demo video here).

Reached via email, Andrew Fisher, owner of Astor, pointed out that it is much more space-efficient in their shipping area than Styrofoam, since there is just a plastic roll and a compressor. He elaborated, “Since Astor produces its own electricity and recaptures the waste heat to provide heating and cooling for our space, it seemed both incongruous and inconsistent to cling to Styrofoam shipping materials.”

Each bottle rests in an independent sleeve from the others so it can also be separated and used again for your wine travel needs. Or, if you have two boys like us, they each can put them on a hand and have a sword fight!

Related: “Poll: Styrofoam or cardboard for your wine shipping?“

Although it’s known for belt-tightening of a different kind, Sacramento is not known as a weight-loss destination. In fact, Haas, the general manager at Tablas Creek Vineyards in Paso Robles was attending an enormous wine trade show. He recounts on his blog how set out to find a lighter bottle for his top wine, Esprit de Beaucastel, a red blend that retails for about $50. But, in the end, he wasn’t happy:

It became clear that the bottle manufacturers have been taken by surprise with wineries’ desires for lighter bottles. Most of the lightest bottles that they make still are intended for the lowest-end wines. They look cheap. What we’re looking for is a bottle that looks like a top-end bottle, but weighs half as much. And, somewhat to our surprise, those bottles just don’t exist yet.

Specifically, Haas is looking to replace the 900 gram (almost 2 lbs!), oversized bottle with something half that weight. While he could find something acceptable weighing 700g, he writes that lighter than that the bottles “look cheap” with none having the same shape and proportions of top Burgundy bottles and none that “imply quality.” About 9,000 cases of Esprit de Beaucastel were made last year, or 108,000 bottles. As he points out in his post, reducing the weight of each in half would make a real difference on the carbon footprint of the wine and bring it more into line with the winery’s efforts at environmental responsibility, instead of undermining them. Congratulations to him on thinking thin.

What do you think he should do? One solution might be to go to a 450g bottle for one of the winery’s other, higher volume wines and gauge reactions. It’s my impression that consumers are ahead of wineries on this issue and wineries are apparently ahead of bottle makers: hopefully one day, wineries will stop prejudging a wine’s apparent quality for consumers with bulky, bling bottles from a bygone era. Give us good wine, give us a pretty front label and an informative back label, but keep the heavy bottle.

Images reproduced with permission.

We sat down over a macchiato in NYC one morning and discussed his views on alternative packaging. Although he recognizes the weight of glass and its role in the overall carbon footprint, his own wines still come in glass bottles. His thoughts, in brief:

* Glass: although recycling glass takes more energy than making virgin glass, it is better overall since it reduces raw material inputs. Grove Mill uses a lightweight bottle, which means 25 percent more wine in a container, he says.
* PET bottles: “oxygen migration” is a “major problem” for plastic bottles, Pearce says, and can hasten the oxidation of wine. He encourages me to test it at home with the same spring water bottled in glass and plastic and suggests it’s particularly obvious with tonic water (pity ours has high fructose corn syrup).
* Bag-in-box: Pearce is a fan. He says the aluminum layer in the best bags greatly reduces oxygen migration, which instead mainly comes through the valve once opened. He doesn’t use it for Grove Mill, he says, because he would have to buy the cardboard made in Australia: “We have forests right by us that we could make into paper.”
* Pouch: he’s no marsupial, but he likes a good pouch; the bag (sans box) is akin to a Capri Sun. It stands up on a shelf and when empty, takes up virtually no space and weighs practically nothing. If this were ever to take off in the US, it would have to have a sexier name than pouch.
* TetraPak: efficient packing in shipping containers, light, little waste and better oxygen prevention than PET; on the con side, he says that it’s not rigid and not as attractive as glass.
* Aluminum cans: The most appealing part of aluminum, he says, is that recycling takes only five percent of the energy used to make it. He was seriously considering it for his own wine until he realized the byproducts of smelting are “massive.”

Related: “Wine bottle recycling is low – but some bottles getting lighter”