Screwcaps worst for the environment says closure company
July 24, 2007
Oliver Styles
Screwcaps produce the largest carbon footprint compared to synthetic closures and corks says research conducted for a French closure company.
The production of screwcaps gives off over 10kg of CO2 per tonne compared with 2.5kg of CO2 per tonne for corks, according to tests conducted by Cairn Environment for Oeneo Bouchage in France.
The composite DIAM closure fell between the two, with a carbon footprint of 4.3kg of CO2 per tonne.
All the closures are produced by Oeneo, and production of the PVC capsule to go with the cork and DIAM closures was taken account in recording the data.
Oeneo Bouchage, which makes the DIAM composite and treated cork closure, said the tests had been ratified by the French Environmental Agency.
Carbon footprint is the measure of the amount of CO2 – a greenhouse gas – released into the atmosphere through the combustion of fossil fuels and other sources.
One recent environmental study found that an individual cheeseburger has a carbon footprint of 3.06kg of CO2, including transportation of the raw materials and carbon emitted during the cooking process.
Have your say... To post your comment on this story, email us at news@decanter.com, making sure the relevant headline is in the subject field
So if I'm getting this math right, the difference between cork finish and screw cap finish is about two cheese burgers per 120100 bottles. How much carbon would be saved if the cheese burger were washed down with wine rather than a soda?
Gordon Rawson, Chatter Creek Winery, USA
Does the report say anywhere how many screwcaps make a ton as compared to how many corks? And does it take into account the fact that aluminum closures are recyclable, while cork closures are not?
M. Zane Grey
......and if we break it down to CF per bottle?
......and take into consideration use of recycled materials?
......how do they compare???
Richard Ehrenberger, LeHermitage Estate Wines
The approach of comparing the carbon impact of the production process various closures is naïve at best. The relative performance of the products must also be factored in the calculation. If we elect to ignore the failure rate of natural corks via oxidation or tca taint then your comparison might have merit, however where is the measurement of the carbon impact of the wine, packaging, transport and disposal of the hundreds of millions of bottles of bottles of wine which are effectively unnecessarily made each year only to be tipped down the drain because of closure performance issues,
Shay McQuade, Amcor Australasia, Victoria, Australia
After doing all the equations, any way you choose. There is no greater waste of resources; time, money, effort, carbon, blood, sweat, and tears when wine cant be drunk because of random oxidation or TCA from a bit of dodgy bark and the variability in glass.
Ian Hongell, Senior Winemaker, Peter Lehmann Wines Limited, South Australia
Before we can make sense of this news, surely we need to know how many screw caps and corks per tonne, to give an emission per closure figure?
And given that the same amount of carbon is produced to make a bottle of wine that might well be poured down the sink due to cork-taint and other unacceptable faults, compared with one closed with a faultless screw cap, there is surely no argument!
When is the wine industry going to realise that selling a product with a known (or expected) fault rate of between 1 & 10% when sealed with cork is simply not acceptable? If any other consumer product was sold in this way, there would be an enormous outcry and the authorities (health and political) would close down such producers.
It's time we woke up and stopped smelling TCA!
Kim Lawless, Chandlers Hill, South Australia
From the misleading way this article has been written or the press release copied and pasted are we really to believe that Oeneo Bouchage's screw cap has exactly the same carbon footprint as every other screw cap produced worldwide? If so I would like to see OB provide the data to back up their claim. If not the article should read 'Oeneo Bouchage's screw caps worse for the environment', however I can't see their marketing department signing that one off... I would also be interested to know if OB calculated and compared the additional carbon footprint generated by transporting their closures to say Australia and New Zealand, the primary markets for screw caps, against that of a locally produced screw cap. I am not a screw cap zealot by any means, but I am sick of cork manufacturers spending their time attacking alternative closures rather than putting their own houses in order. Having said all that, from experience Diam is a viable alternative when it comes using a natural cork closure that minimises TCA taint, delivering to the consumer that which the winemaker intended.
Matt McCulloch, Kirrihill Wines, South Australia
The data in this study does not factor in the carbon footprint caused by the return of cork tainted wines to the supplier. If we take the median output of the average bottle returned to supplier at 2.3kgs of carbon per 9km return trip and the average number of tainted wines that the consumer bothers to return at a conservative 3%, out of 30 billion bottles of wine sold annually we can extrapolate that the footprint left by cork is roughly 90,000 times or 6 million cheesburgers greater than that of screw cap. As Decanter continues to successfully educate the consumer on both the quality and faults in wine, these factors will radically alter the results bringing closure to this environmental issue.
Toby Bensimon, Australia
And what about the environmental impact of the aluminium or plastic foil cover that is put over corks and synthetic closures, but not needed for screwcaps?
Peter Thomas
Listen to all the Austrailians crying! Unbelieveable! You'd think you were listening to a bunch of old school Bordeaux Baronnesses after hearing someone suggest the 1855 Classification is meaningless! Why wouldn't you all say, "Hmm, that IS interesting, we will now investigate the environmental, impact of our OWN closures." That would be the ADULT response. At least THIS company bothered to undertake the study.
Also, while we're at it, maybe we should address the carbon footprint of the average bottle of Aussie plonk like Wolf Blass, Lindeman's et. al. that is shipped halfway acrpss the world only to be dumped down the sink because it's crap - TCA or no.
While we're on the subject of environmental impact, I wonder what the impact is on the environment of pumping the millions of gallons of water into Austrailian vineyards for irrigation purposes? Until you (the aussie wine industry) address questions such as these in a credible way, I see no reason for this defensiveness particularly when your argument is environment-based.
Dave, Ireland
This is obviously a very contentious issue from a carbon footprint point of view. But I am still wholly unconvinced that screwcaps are the solution to "corked" wines. There is considerable evidence that the organisms that result in a corked wine can be introduced by other things than using a cork as a closure.
I'm 62 and have only ever had 5 definitely corked bottles of wine in my life (out of an estimated 5,000 bottles), though it has to be said that I rarely drink anything costing less than £8 a bottle at current prices. I'm sure that a lot of so-called corked wine is simply returned because the buyer doesn't like it, not because it is actually corked. If all wine producers made sure that they used high quality corks (has anyone had a corked classed growth Bordeaux that had been properly stored? - I haven't), the argument for screwcaps would evaporate. Yes they may be appropriate for shortlived whites or even reds, but any serious wine that needs a certain amount of oxygen to mature, demands a cork.
And it is not just a question of carbon footprint - cork forests sustain considerable wildlife and often populate areas of land where no other crop will be economic to grow.
David Burlinson, East Dulwich, UK
Added to all the other valid comments posted here, i.e. debating the math, recycling, the carbon cost of faulty wine etc, one must also remember that “quality” cork plus a capsule costs ($) significantly more than screwcaps. Therefore, offsetting any (debatable) emissions increase due to their use, could be easily achieved by spending the saving on carbon credits and/or directly on genuine carbon sequestration projects.
Rod Easthope, winemaker, Craggy Range Vineyards, New Zealand
I have read some responses to this article and found that some people have missed some of the information completely. Whilst corks contribute to TCA problems, the new Diam does not - so there are no returns. Secondly, as corks is hand harvested from a living tree, the tree would be off-setting some of the CO2 emissions - after all photosynthesis creates oxygen. The raw material for producing Aluminium screwcaps are basically dug up out of the ground using machines.
One response missed the point that the comparison included PVC capsules.
We use both closures - screwcaps for consumer preference (New Zealand) and Diam corks for high end wines and export to the UK.
Had Diams been around to cure the TCA/oxidation problems I am sure Screwcaps would not have made the impact they have done now. I think it is naive for people to think that screwcaps do not have their faults as well. It maybe the defence of screwcaps comes down to one thing only, COST - less cost per closure and the amount of capital winemakers have put into converting bottling lines to screwcaps.
Chris Parker, Mount Cass Wines, New Zealand
In addition to tin foil and plastic covers as pointed out by Peter, I dont remember seeing the numbers on what energy goes into making cork screws to remove a cork?
As far as im aware screw caps don't require additional apparatus to open a bottle. Perhaps the science should be left to the scientists!
Allen Hart
It's interesting to read the replies for Screwcaps v Cork. First take a look at where the aluminium comes from. A huge hole in the ground, the cost of the equipment to dig it out, transport the bauxite to the smelter, the electricity and water needed to make the cap. The wine industry at best is not very green. The wastage that is the packaging and the use of a lot of stainless steel. Secondly, the winemaker, historically, used the cheapest cork to save money so some of the problems were self created. Secondly, you look at the winery practices - chlorine based products used in the winery has been identified as creating the TCA taint - which has also been detected in screw caps one US winery having 75% of their wine affected by TCA taint under screw cap. Wine Spectator 2003-04.
A cork at least when thrown away disintegrates and turns into dust. Thirdly the wine industry by using screw caps is further training the wine drinking population to drink wines "as if they were a can of baked beans." No age no subtleties! Personally I have seen more problems with particular taints under screw caps. Not easily recognisable by the average drinker. At least a wine with cork taint is recognisable.
Renos Ross, Sydney, Australia
Please see Oeneo Closures response to the posts.
Oeneo's glad to see so much interest in this topic. Our report, as a producer of DIAM, ROTEs and historically natural cork, was designed to provide us with a starting point from which we can begin to reduce our own Carbon Footprint.
Covering off some of the points:
Yes; the report looks at ROTEs that use both 30% and 70% recycled aluminium although, while there isn't much between the two, using 70% recycled aluminium causes brittleness in the closure.
Factoring in the relevant performance of the closures is difficult on the grounds that there is no empirical evidence to provide a statistically valid point from which to start the calculations. However, Oeneo stopped the production of natural cork 2 years ago because it believed that the risks associated with using natural cork, TCA and bottle variation, were too high. With regards toDIAM and ROTEs, we have no evidence to suggest that either of these closure types taint, scalp or are inconsistent. Our current concern is that, regardless of the number of gas transmission options we provide in either DIAM or ROTE, there is currently insufficient understanding and research into the interaction between oxygen and the evolution of complex sulphides.
All measurements are made in tonnes/million closures.
All energy consumption for the production of the three closures in the report has been derived from the Carbon Footprint left by electricity produced according to the European mean. Full details are in the report.
All calculations concerning the lifespan of the closures, from raw materials to end of life/recycling considered, are from within Europe.
Yes, the study does take into account the capsule.
Again we would like to reiterate that this study was produced to enable us to begin the process of reducing our own Carbon Footprint and not to tell others which to use. Producing both DIAM and ROTEs, neither of which have been shown to scalp, taint or perform inconsistently scalping, tainting and both consistent, we want to encourage other sectors of the industry, even other closure manufacturers, to undertake the same level of self scrutiny.
Just quickly on the cheese burger issue; was the report referring to a Quarter Pounder (Royal for the French) with Cheese or a Double Whopper? Did anyone take into account that more tonnes of Double Whopper may be thrown away than Quarter Pounders?
Dean Banister, Oeneo Closures
The study does not take into account the carbon footprint of returned bottles but DIAM has 0% TCA- so in that instance it out performs screwcap. Additionally many other cork producers have invested in technology that has reduced TCA rate to less than 1%. Entire vintages of wine can be destroyed when screwcaps fail and this is also not taken into account in the carbon footprinting. The study DOES take into account 35% recycled aluminum but DOES NOT take into account the carbon that is sequestered by the tree during it's 200 year life span. Also, the study does not take into account that aluminum is a finite resource that has to be mined while and cork oak bark has been and will be sustainable for thousands of years.
Shelby Zadow, Tualatin Oregon, USA
Much complaints about the cork in the comments. Why? Have the wine interested reader forgotten all reports – including the ones from AWRI (Australian Wine Research Institute) - about the reduced aroma taint that follows many wines under screwcaps. I have one report saying that as much as up to 17% of wines have these reduced characters (AWRI Technical Review No.142, feb 2003)…
Lars Jonsson, Gothenburg, Sweden
Before accusing the screwcap producers with environmental arguments, the cork producers should also consider some non "green" aspects of their own industry; (i.e. CO2 emissions for long distance transportation, chemicals products used in production etc.). In addition to that the aluminium is almost infinitely recyclable. Moreover, as part of our Group sustainable policy, we are intensively committed to develop further our technologies in order to ensure our process meets the environmental expectations of the 21st century.
Guala Closures Group
Another reference to screwcaps. It did not mention just what the impact of raising beef is on the environment. It takes 10 lbs of grain to make 1lb of beef. The rain forests in S. America are being cut down to raise beef.
In comparison, screwcaps are putting a small blip on the CO2 emissions chart.
Gail Bickett
Register on decanter.com absolutely free for news alerts delivered direct to your email inbox, and our fortnightly newsletter with advance notice of what’s coming up in Decanter magazine, offers, competitions and more.
PLUS registration is a one-stop shop for the Decanter magazine Archive and Decanter Fine Wine Tracker.
So if I'm getting this math right, the difference between cork finish and screw cap finish is about two cheese burgers per 120100 bottles. How much carbon would be saved if the cheese burger were washed down with wine rather than a soda?
