Ask Pablo: Which Is Less Bad For The Environment: Wine Or Beer?

Dear Pablo: When asked if I prefer beer or wine I am neutral. To help me get off the fence I am wondering: Is beer or wine better for the environment?

Image Source: Riebschlager

 

Like car commercials claiming that 2000 pounds of metal and plastic are "good for the environment" because it has a trunk full of batteries, the choice between beer and wine for environmental reasons is a false one. Hardly anything that we humans do on this planet can be considered good for it. The best we can hope for are varying degrees of badness. So in this case let us rephrase the question to "Which is less bad for the environment: wine or beer?"

A Closer Look At Beer

Beer is made mainly from grains which are rarely grown by the brewery (unlike wine grapes). These grains are processed and shipped, incurring some greenhouse gas emissions, but the beer is usually consumed within a reasonably close radius, keeping the outbound shipping emissions low. The American Industry Standard Bottle (ISB, a.k.a. "longneck bottle") holds 341 ml (~12 ounces) of beer and is made of thick glass that can withstand the pressures of a carbonated beverage. This packaging weight contributes a lot to the overall shipping weight of the finished product and therefore to its greenhouse gas emissions. While typically associated with "cheaper" beers, aluminum cans can reduce the overall environmental impact of beer, especially when it is to be transported over longer distances.

A Closer Look At Wine

Wine is made from grapes that are typically grown on-site, so the emissions from incoming shipping is limited to the oak wine barrels, usually from France and usually used only once or twice. Wine bottles, which hold 750 ml are generally thinner and lighter than beer bottles although they still represent a significant contribution to shipping emissions. Since wine is transported to markets around the world some innovative wineries have switched from their traditional glass bottles to TetraPak or Bag-In-Box.

The Verdict

Like so many decisions, this one is full of variables. If you compare local wine with imported beer, the wine wins. If you compare your local microbrew to a bottle of red flown from around the world, the beer wins. In the most general terms a bottle of wine has around four times the impact of a bottle of beer, but the bottle of wine contains four servings while the bottle of beer contains only one. Unfortunately this does not answer the question definitively but I will leave you with some guidelines:

• Buy local! The local microbrewery or winery whether it is Cape Ann Brewing in Gloucester, MA, Henry of Pelham in St. Catherines, Ontario, or Moylans in Novato, CA will not disappoint you.
• Buy Light No, I am not advocating for light beer. When selecting your beer or wine, look for companies that are breaking the mold and pushing into more innovative forms of packaging that reduce material intensity and shipping emissions.
• Buy Organic When I wrote a study on the greenhouse gas emissions from the production and distribution of wine I was surprised that there was not much difference between organic and non-organic wines in terms or greenhouse gas emissions. However, greenhouse gas emissions are only one of many environmental issues to consider and the use of pesticides is reason enough to buy organic.
• Look for higher percentages. If your taste in beer allows it, I suggest sampling something like a craft brewed Belgian Tripel. Not only does the higher percentage means that you get more alcohol ounce-for-ounce, but you will also need fewer bottles to serve your guests.
• Be Responsible This has nothing to do with the environmental impact of beer or wine but is important nonetheless. Don't drink and drive, don't drink while pregnant, listen to your mother and don't forget your sunscreen.

Pablo Päster is a weekly columnist for TreeHugger.com, an experienced greenhouse gas engineer and the Senior Environmental Program Manager at Hara Software.

Copenhagen Forecast: Snow, Protest, Apocalypse; Can Obama Clear the Air?

The Final Stretch

Citizens around the world have called for a fair deal at climate talks, and in Copenhagen, they plan to make that call louder tomorrow with civil disobedience. The world's leading mayors have also called for a real deal, as have some of America's leading businesses. But where it counts, in the negotiating rooms, something is, sorry to say, still rotten in the state of Denmark.

No one said bringing all the world's countries together to hash out a deal -- or really, the foundations of a deal -- would be easy. But after nearly half a decade of facing the inconvenient truths of climate change, and its economic, political, and moral imperatives, does it have to be this hard?

Though we may not be fighting the apocalypse, as Greenpeace would have it, in Copenhagen we're staking the boldest claim yet for the future of the earth. We've messed it up -- we know that -- and we have the power to correct our mistake. So of course it has to be hard, because it has to be good.

Where We Are Now

To get things on track for the last day before heads of state take over, Denmark's Environment Minister, Connie Hedegaard, has formed five small groups to sort out the five "crunch issues" at the summit:

Improving the targets to be set by developed countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are causing climate change

* The mitigation actions of developing countries;*

* The long-term finance to be provided by rich nations so that poor countries can cope with climate change effects;

* How to deal with emissions caused by the aviation and shipping industries; and

* Special circumstances of some countries (such as Russia) in relation to mitigation.

The Divisions

The end times may not be upon us, but the developed and developing countries certainly look more divided than before. The African nations, which suspended talks on Monday, want a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, a regime the US and most other developed countries reject outright.

Rich countries are also reluctant to dole out the long-term aid poor nations need to survive and fight climate change. The US is especially adamant that it won't give China any money -- or reparations, as the US negotiator idiotically called them -- because China doesn't need the US's money. China's negotiator seemed to agree with that at first, but then Beijing backtracked, saying China deserves money too.

What China says it doesn't deserve is to have its emissions cuts overseen by any carbon police, a demand the US insists is an absolute must for any climate deal. Meanwhile, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) says that an upper limit of two degrees Celsius of warming isn't good enough as it would result in a loss of coastlines and sometime entire islands; they want a 1.5-degree cap, but not all developing nations do. And now, thanks to a backroom deal between France and Ethiopia, even the African nations are showing rifts.

The Agreements (Sort Of)

There have been some promising steps forward, apart from the promises made just before the summit by China, India, Brazil and others. Yesterday a number of potential financing options were put on the table. Today Holland committed to the 40 percent cuts called for by Kyoto.

Meanwhile, the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation scheme, known as REDD, got a dollar amount affixed to it today: $22 billion to $37 billion to jump start the plan, which would seek to halt deforestation in developing nations completely by 2030. (Currently, the only money being offered for a climate deal is a meager $30 billion in so-called "kick-start" financing over three years; some groups also call it "kick-end" financing because it doesn't go beyond that date).

But ultimately, these steps forward are signs of good will and good faith, not agreements that are likely to make it into a final agreement.

Endgame - Or New Game?

With expectations as low as ever, and anger and concern rising, Barack Obama may be well positioned to attempt a modest Hail Mary pass when he flies in on Thursday. The timing of the White House's report today about green jobs seems fortuitous; what better way to prime the American public for a ramping up of the US's carbon cutting commitments? But chances are, his throw won't be strong enough, and if it is, he may not have any teammates to catch it.

At the summit where world leaders were supposed to ink a binding deal on climate change, environmental groups, activists and journalists are already preparing for a greenwash, and getting ready to pack their bags for the next possible climate agreement end zone in Mexico.

Before they get there though, they may need to help remake the game completely.

Article by Alex Pasternack Courtesy of Treehugger.com http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/copenhagen-forecast-snow-protest-apocalypse-can-obama-clear-the-air.php