CARBON FOOTPRINT BY THE NUMBERS

The average carbon footprint of a standard 750 ml bottle of wine, as extracted from nearly 50 reported studies. The results range from 1.3 to 4.8 lbs due to differences in the practices that produce a wine (organic v. non-organic, high yield v. low yield, etc) as well as definitional differences in the scope and boundaries of the studies. (1) Let’s call the average carbon footprint ~3 lbs CO2 per bottle. (Ipoint, 2012)

The reported carbon footprint of a six pack of beer averages 5.9 lbs, and ranges from 3.0 to 8.9 lbs. A six pack of beer has about the same total ethanol content as a bottle of wine, but its carbon footprint is nearly 2x that of wine. Another score for the wine snobs among us. (Berners-Lee, 2010)

The total carbon permanently stored in an acre of vines. If all the vines were pulled and then burned (which is sadly the common practice) to make way for a replanting, 36 tons of CO2 per acre would be immediately released into the atmosphere. That’s just about equal to two American’s annual carbon footprint (~20 tons each). (Morande, 2017)

The total carbon permanently stored in an average acre of Sonoma County oak woodlands. Coastal oak woodlands are the most typical habitat that vineyards replace. Thus the 105,000 acres of vineyards we have planted in Sonoma and Napa Counties have released almost 3,000,000 tons as they were put in. (Gaman, 2008)

The Ellis Oak holds about 100 tons of carbon. “Ellie,” the valley oak (Quercus lobata) featured on our website’s landing page, is our first inhabitant. Arborists have estimated that it is Sonoma County’s second oldest oak (400+ years). It measures nearly 21′ in circumference. At its widest point, it measures just under 7′ in diameter. Using a circumference to mass calculator we estimate it holds over 100 tons of carbon. We offered Ellie into permanent recognition as one of the half-dozen registered Heritage Trees in Sonoma County.

Organic farming practices may lower or increase a wine’s carbon footprint depending on what impacts are considered. The majority of studies published indicate that organic viticulture has a higher rate of tractor use because it doesn’t benefit from a single good-for-the-whole-season spraying of non-organic glyphosate herbicide. But, depending on the specific organic practices used, namely permanent cover crops, it may reduce significantly the soil emissions of the super greenhouse gas nitrous oxide. (Venkat, 2012; Rugani, 2013; Steenwerth, 2015: Belafoutis, 2017)

In a direct comparison of a freshly manufactured aluminum can versus a bottle, the heavier weighted bottle results in 47% less CO2. While the empty bottle weighs nearly 20x the empty can, its manufacture still produces a lighter carbon footprint. This is largely due to the impact of bauxite mining, (the mineral source of aluminum), and the electrolysis necessary to produce the aluminum substrate. But this lower carbon footprint is only from the manufacturing. When the full life cycle is included the transport of the heavier bottle will quickly undermine the manufacturing benefit. (Dugan 2008)

Globally, over 500 shapes of wine bottles are used. Because melting recylced bottles requires the same high energy as forming new bottles, recyling bottles without first reusing them significantly limits what we can do to limit a bottle’s carbon footprint. Since the carbon footprint of the bottle is the biggest single component of wine’s carbon footprint, addressing this issue will be impactful. Either the industry must shift to lighter weight containers or it will need to reduce the number of bottle shapes to help drive recyling to reuse, which could lower the carbon footprint of bottles by 96%. (Dugan 2008)