I'm reading a new book these days: The Carbon Age, by Eric Roston. In his book, Roston traces the history of the Carbon atom, from the first moments after the Big Bang, through the creation and evolution of Earth and life on it, to this very day. He shows how carbon came to exist in the forms it does on this planet, the various ways that carbon has changed form and location over the eons, and how all this has affected, and been affected by, life on our home rock.
The book is fascinating, and certainly a great read in these days of eco-conciousness and abounding misinformation. I strongly recommend it.
When I stop to think about it, I find it curious how, why, within the last year society has generally, finally, started to become conscious of the environmental impact of our decisions. Out of nowhere, everyone is now using reusable shopping bags. Without warning, it is passé to throw away something which is recyclable. Green is not just good anywhere, it's cool. A tipping point was hit, and the idea has spread.
Thank God. It's about time.
But being green now and then is a far cry from the real work we must do to save the planet as we know it over the decades ahead. In our state of affairs, any carbon emission is too much. We have no room to spare.
So it was that I read this morning's op-ed in the Times with great interest. Apparently, due to its weight and irregular shape, a single bottle of wine is responsible for the generation of 5.2 pounds of carbon dioxide when it is shipped from vineyards in California to tables in New York. Get that: 750 ml of drinkable wine produces 5.2 pounds of unbreathable carbon dioxide (well, to be fair, you can breath CO2, it just doesn't do anything for you, and certainly doesn't get you drunk). And that's just from the transportation.
If we really care about saving the planet, about reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back to pre-Industrialization levels, then every pound of CO2 counts.
Which is why it should be pleasing to learn that were we to package 97% (the amount of wine that is not aged) of our domestic wines in boxes, rather than bottles, in a given year we would accomplish the equivalent of taking 400,000 cars off the road. It should be noted that boxes do not make wine taste crappy, rather, currently, only crappy wines are put in boxes.
What makes this possibility so interesting, I think, is that it falls into the category of ways in which we can help to save the planet that does not actually negatively impact our way of life. A preference for bottles is all in the head - it's all about style and taste and pride. There is no real reason why we should prefer a given glass of wine that came from a bottle to one that came out of a spout.
So there's the question. Is this a "sacrifice" you are willing to make, for the sake of the planet, and the future?
I happened to be at Whole Foods today, in need of some wine. I looked, but they only carried bottles. Damn.
So, in need of wine and without patience to search for boxes of bad wine, at least yet, I bought some, and carried them home in a cardboard wine-bottle-holder.
As I walked up the steps to my apartment, the bottom of the holder gave-out, and a bottle of wine went bouncing it's way down the stairs to my building's courtyard, where it exploded in a sea of red and glass.
Double damn.
Comments