In a recent story on Decanter, researchers from Cairn Environment for Oeneo Bouchage in France assert that the manufacturing of Screw Caps has a bigger carbon imprint over Corks, and therefore is bad for the environment.
The production of screwcaps gives off over 10kg of CO2 per tonne compared with 2.5kg of CO2 per tonne for corks
That’s great and all, but as some savy readers of Decanter point out, there are more than a few flaws with the data.
First off, how many Screw caps make up a ton vs. how many corks? It would be nice to know the actual emission number per closure.
Secondly, the study says nothing of the impact of aluminum closures being recyclable versus corks, and the impact that has on the environment.
Third, what about the wines that are more likely to be tainted by TCA that are sealed under cork? Does the study measure the impact all of those bad bottles of wine that were produced, transported, and then thrown away versus ones sealed with a cork that were not bad, therefore not a waste of fuel, packaging, etc?
Forth, how big of a footprint is left from the transportation of the majority of corks produced in Spain and Portugal around the world, versus countries that have screw cap manufacturing plants in closer vacinity?
Fifth, what is the footprint of the alumium foil cover on bottles sealed with corks versus screw caps that don’t necessitate the foil?
Sixth, how about the energy used to manufacture corkscrews, rabbits, foil cutters, etc?
Now, I will admit that screw caps have their fair shair of faults; mined from the earth, not sustainable, chlorine taint during production can also cause TCA taint in bottles sealed with any closure. But I think when you look at the whole picture, the consumer is tired of hearing attacks against closures that are far superior to corks, and are already here to stay.
The other night I walked up to the bar at a concert, and I heard a woman behind me tell her husband she wanted a glass of wine. He asked her which one, to which she replied, “Anything sealed with a screw cap.”
The smell of change is in the air.
Good anaylisis, Jathan
I think Decanter intentionally tries to make thinks controversial in order to get a reaction.
The reality is that wine has a high carbon footprint no matter how you look. From the paraphernalia like corkscrews you pointed out to wine fridges to tons of Wine Spectators to heavy bottles shipped around the planet, etc, etc.
But what are we to do? Walk to the nearest winery buck ass naked with a container you found along the way and have them fill it? And how big a carbon footprint does that make?
Wouldn’t that be a sight to see????
You forgot to mention the carbon footprint created by the cheese consumption that pairs so nicely with wine (pass the Lactaid please)
Oeneo is the first and only closure supplier to provide carbon footprint data for their closures; we supply Diam and S – Cap but no longer produce traditional cork because of the TCA and bottle variation risk. The report was undertaken so that we could etablish our impact and undertake ways to reduce our carbon impact.
Both Diam and Screwcap have independently been proven to not scalp , taint or have a negative impact on wine quality.
I will answer your questions below;
1/ The figures are in tonnes of Co2 per million closures
2/ The imapct of recycling is considered with aluminium at a rate of 35% recycled material being used in prodcution, the European average. No consideration was made for recyling cork, although it can be recycled, it is an issue of collection.
3/ No consideration is made on returns as noted above Screwcap and Diam do not have an issue of having returns. No allowance was made for returns of natural cork because it cannot be quanitified statistically.
4/ The figures are for closures supplied into Europe.
5/ The figures for cork and Diam include the impact of the capsule.
6/ No allowance for the cork screw, they tend to be used many times to open wine. In my house thousands of times!
The research has been validated by the French Enviromental Agency. It was not intended to attack any closure or tell any winery what to use, just a reference point for evaluation. We would encourage all companies including other closure suppliers to underatake their own research and self scrutiny.
Dean Banister – Oeneo Bouchage
Its hard to believe that none of us can read. The study was done to find out what the company could do to reduce their own carbon footprint. This is pretty standard these days among wine companies and others concerned about the impact their business has on the environment. The study clearly points out that the company makes all three of the studied closures, the screwcap, standard cork, and their micro-agglomerate DIAM cork.
The study also clearly indicates that each of the alternatives were calculated to include the capsule that covers the cork/bottle. The study also clearly states that it takes into account a rate of recycling for the aluminum of 35%.
As for the carbon footprint resulting from the shipment of corks, what, do you really think that they make aluminum in Napa or in Tuscany, or in Bordeaux? Come on. Think. The sponsor simply released the information about their own products. Why cant we just consider the facts (KEY WORD: FACTS) and use our brains to understand the implications of the study and not attack them for trying to be better for our environment
Dean,
Thanks for the clarification. Bravo to your company for commissioning such a study, and for adopting newer forms of bottle closure.
wineboy8,
Certainly, we can and do read, but as you point out, information you reference was in the study, and not simply the story on Decanter’s website. Now that further details have been supplied by Mr. Banister on this website and Decanter, we are all on the same page.
No one was attacking them, or their effort to research their environmental impact. On the contrary, this company is leading their industry, especially by making the brave move to do away with traditional corks because of problems with bottle variation and TCA.
And since Aluminum is freely available and shipped around the world for many other uses, it’s not a huge problem that they don’t ore it in wine country, when all a factory has to do is receive their supply from a local metal distributor.
I feel that these days, the ones with the biggest problem are those that constantly insist that the Cork is the holy grail of the wine industry, and that anything else is a cheap substitute ridden with problems. With article headings like “Screwcaps worst for the environment says closure company”, no wonder people come to the defense of the alternative closure.
The facts are, bottles sealed with Screw caps and other alternative closures are less likely to be tainted, and that is reason enough for me to seek out wineries that use them.
The environmental argument does seem to be stretching it a bit. There are a few technical issues about which wines take best to screw caps (I have blog entry on that here), but to me it still comes down to whether I’m looking for convenience (Wed night rose) or grandeur (a BIG bottle on a BIG night) in a given moment.
Hi Swirlingnotions,
Since I mainly drink wine during the week and on the weekends, screw caps work out perfect for me…..
Good for you jatemack. I’m sticking to screwcaps during the week and saving my corks for the weekend . . . when I’ve got the extra 15 seconds to open them
.
“New forms” of bottle closure?. I have fond memories of screw caps on wine bottles way back in the late fifties and early sixties. Let’s see, there were Wild Irish Rose and Thunderbird – my first red and my first white. It’s true, I never had one go bad on me.
Hi Orson,
Thanks for the feedback. New for fine wine’s? Yes. Used before for plonk? Yes. Does that make it less appropriate to protect and seal fine wine today? No.
You sound like someone who subscribes to the idea that a screwcap somehow cheapens wine. That’s too bad, since that’s how every wine will be sealed in the near future.
Oh well, I’ll let you stick to your Thunderbird while I enjoy Napa Valley’s finest.
-Jathan