Catavino keeps you current not only with the remarkable wine developments in Spain and Portugal, two of the most dynamic wine producers on the planet, but you'll learn about food trends, new dishes and restaurants and the ancient and modern cultures on the Iberian Peninsula. And you may not notice it, but Catavino also happens to be one of smoothest designed websites you'll have the pleasure of visiting.
Doug Frost MS/MW http://dougfrost.com

A Take on Global Warming from Experts such as Richard Smart, Pancho Campo, Michael Rolland and other Influentials of the Wine World!

Pancho Campo

As I sit staring at the computer today after 12 hours of constant chat on how global warming is effecting both the earth and the our wines, I’m still reeling with questions and concerns. Granted, I never expected to walk out of the II International Conference on Climate and Wine with all of my questions answered, but I was hoping to leave with a sense of hope and direction. Sadly, I’m just not feeling it.

Our day started with a rather frenetic start, as I failed horrifically in my duty to set the alarm for 6am. Instead, we woke up at 8:00am, completely freaking out, because we were expected to arrive at the conference an hour and a half later, which is not big deal if it didn’t take you that exact same amount of time to travel to your destination. However, by the grace of the Blogger God, we magically arrived at the Hesperia Hotel in Barcelona on the dot with our cameraman, Richard, waiting with a smile and cup of coffee. Albeit a nerve-wracking start, we eventually settled ourselves into our seats with among 350 other people from 36 countries, and began the conference.

To give you a little background, the first International Conference on Climate and Wine two years ago was both considered a major success and a major failure, mainly due to the fact that only 76 people registered for the event. Hence, Pancho Campo, the founder of the conference, lost a considerable amount of money putting the entire conference together with such a low turnout. Yet, he’s is not the type of guy to give up easily, preferring to proceed with a second conference to be scheduled two years later in hopes that by then, there may be a call to action as the temperatures continued to rise and weather becomes increasing more erratic. Obviously, he bet on the right horse, because even this morning, as the sun slowly peaked above the Mediterranean waters, there were still people desperate to sign up moments before the conference began.

The morning began with four speakers, followed by a lunch hosted by Amorim, the largest cork company in the world, and ended at 8pm after nine additional speeches. Outside of the conference stood stands of wineries, primarily from Catalunya, pouring freely at your request. With a few coffee breaks scattered in between, the day was incredibly long, but ran smoothly and without a hitch.

Gab being Interviewed

Our Take on the Event:

Prevention versus Adaptation
One of the issues we struggled with from the moment the light’s dimmed and the speakers took to the stage was that adaption to the problem was a major theme. I felt as if I was being hounded with stats telling me that babies being born now will most likely suffer through the worst effects from global warming and that there is little that can be done other than seeking out property that will be of value in the future, often in locations currently without residents or condos. As winters become slightly warmer, spring frosts decrease, summer temperatures soar, water consumption increases and harvests commence earlier, we are at the opportune time to take advantage of these early warning signs by seeking out alternative grape varietals, new real estate and alternative winemaking practices. My question: where was/is the conversation about prevention?

Wineries are Exempt from Global Warming
Walk around the lobby where stands of wineries are excited to share their wines, and suddenly you realize that only a small percentage are actually doing anything to support sustainable winemaking. Of the eight wineries I casually polled, only one mentioned that they were considering looking into water conservation in the future (wineries use a ton of water in the wine making process). The rest shared that they were personally invited by Pancho to serve their wines, but that none of them either practiced sustainable winemaking or believed in sustainable winemaking. To make matters worst only Torres and Banrock Station Winery were actively promoting sustainable winemaking. My question: when are wineries going to see the cost benefit of using sustainable winemaking practices?

Wine Packaging and Distribution
Tetrapak and bag in box wines were the big words swimming around the conference. Richard Smart, the world leader in canopy management and viticulture made it clear that glass was out and tetra pak(basically a specially designed cardboard box) and bag in a box are in, and that anyone who thought otherwise, hadn’t done their research. I intend to talk more on this issue because I think it’s incredibly interesting, but for now, I’d be curious where you stand on the issue.

Green Wineries are Effectively Marketing Themselves
I’ll be the first to admit that Tony Sharley, an Environmental Scientist and Manager of Banrock Station in Australia blew me away with is presentation, simply because his arguements not only seemed logical, but effective. By both researching and investing in: lowering wine transportation costs, catching and recycling rain water, reducing water use, recycled packaging, sponsoring environmental programs, restoring the surrounding landscape, replanting trees and plants on previously destroyed surrounding lands, hiring on-site ecologists, Banrock has seen a direct increase in enotourism, wine quality and revenue. My question: If wineries see a direct link between profit and conservation, will this create a domino effect in the wine industry?

That’s it for now, my bed is calling me as the clock strikes midnight, but if you have any question for us, I’ll be doing some live blogging tomorrow. So please chime in! America will be waking up as we begin lunch and blogging. Send us a twitter question if you have one and we’ll see if we can get it answered. Al Gore will be giving his Keynote at 8pm our time – 1pm CST….Along with all of this, we’re putting together some high quality videos of the event to share.

Till Soon,

Gabriella and Ryan

PS: we did and saw a lot more than this. Consider it a short recap, we’ll fill you in on more like a blind tasting led by Michael Rolland and Jaques Lurton..stay tuned!

  • Miguel

    sorry! typing error in the previous post! the majority of wineries around the world are NOT into sustainable winemaking practices M.

  • Miguel

    sorry! typing error in the previous post!

    the majority of wineries around the world are NOT into sustainable winemaking practices

    M.

  • Ryan

    Thanks Miguel, we agree, though we don't see where we said otherwise??? Sadly it's very true that most are not, and in Spain even less. Cheers,

  • http://www.obiscoito.com Ryan

    Thanks Miguel, we agree, though we don’t see where we said otherwise??? Sadly it’s very true that most are not, and in Spain even less.
    Cheers,

  • Miguel

    It seems that my previous post wasn't posted. I had a couple of links embeded in the text to be a bit more specific about my ideias, but it was interpreted as spam. Nevermind, here it goes again without the links… Nice post! Just a few notes about the questions posed… 1. prevention vs adaptation When it comes to climate change, unfortunately, we don't have the ability to prevent it ,cause it's something that's already taking place, and apart from that (the antropogenic part), it's something that even if we were not injecting massive amounts of greenhouse gases (ghg) it would happen naturally, like it has been happening since the earth got it's oceans and atmosphere (and sometimes pretty suddenly, not like what we are still facing today). At least for the time being we don't have the capabilities to geoengineering the planet to prevent (or stop) climate change. Although it can (still) be mitigated. So, in the end of the day, we'll have to adapt (something the human species is very good at!) 2. sustainable winemaking practices The good way: when wineries see the money they can gain. Either "real" cash, through more cost effective practices (like energy efficiency, good water management, soil preservation, etc…), and/or "virtual" cash, through the marketing of the whole sustainability of their businesses (but then it comes down to "real" cash…) The bad way: being imposed either by the market (plain economis and consumers can be very powerfull forces!) or by governments or ruling bodies, most likely because of international agreements and political goals. Anyway, even if as we speak (write!) the majority of wineries around the world are not into sustainable winemaking practices, they're already on the loosing side, the winners are going to be the ones who start first 3.wine packaging and distribution Sustainability and bag-in-a-box (bib) don't mix, no matter what Richard Smart and TetraPak (they're selling their product) say. Bibs are made of plastics (and plastic it sure isn´t eco-friendly) and cardbox has short recicling cycle (meaning paper can only be recicled a couple of times). If you want to reduce the energy intensity and increase the sustainabilty of your wine business think cork and glass (glass can be recicled almost ad infinitum and it´s a inert material and cork, well, it´s the definition of big business sustainability…) Well, this came down to a lenghty comment (and there´s so much more we could talk about, but unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the conference)… btw, nice interview with Sancho Campo! I'll be waiting on your saturday posts. regards, M. ps: congrats for your fine blog! pps: btw it looks like you could need a small help with your wiki, but i'll talk to you on another ocasion…

  • RichardA

    Ryan and Gabriella: Did you notice a lack of attendence/participation by Spainards? Decanter magazine claimed there was a lack of interest of Spainards to this conference. (<a href="<a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)<br />”><a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)<br /> Richard

  • RichardA

    Ryan and Gabriella: Did you notice a lack of attendence/participation by Spainards? Decanter magazine claimed there was a lack of interest of Spainards to this conference. (<a href="<a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)<br />”><a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)<br /> Richard

  • RichardA

    Ryan and Gabriella: Did you notice a lack of attendence/participation by Spainards? Decanter magazine claimed there was a lack of interest of Spainards to this conference. (<a href="<a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)<br />”><a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)<br /> Richard

  • RichardA

    Ryan and Gabriella: Did you notice a lack of attendence/participation by Spainards? Decanter magazine claimed there was a lack of interest of Spainards to this conference. (<a href="<a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)<br />”><a href="http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)<br /> Richard

  • Miguel

    It seems that my previous post wasn’t posted. I had a couple of links embeded in the text to be a bit more specific about my ideias, but it was interpreted as spam.
    Nevermind, here it goes again without the links…

    Nice post!
    Just a few notes about the questions posed…

    1. prevention vs adaptation
    When it comes to climate change, unfortunately, we don’t have the ability to prevent it ,cause it’s something that’s already taking place, and apart from that (the antropogenic part), it’s something that even if we were not injecting massive amounts of greenhouse gases (ghg) it would happen naturally, like it has been happening since the earth got it’s oceans and atmosphere (and sometimes pretty suddenly, not like what we are still facing today). At least for the time being we don’t have the capabilities to geoengineering the planet to prevent (or stop) climate change. Although it can (still) be mitigated. So, in the end of the day, we’ll have to adapt (something the human species is very good at!)

    2. sustainable winemaking practices
    The good way: when wineries see the money they can gain. Either “real” cash, through more cost effective practices (like energy efficiency, good water management, soil preservation, etc…), and/or “virtual” cash, through the marketing of the whole sustainability of their businesses (but then it comes down to “real” cash…)
    The bad way: being imposed either by the market (plain economis and consumers can be very powerfull forces!) or by governments or ruling bodies, most likely because of international agreements and political goals. Anyway, even if as we speak (write!) the majority of wineries around the world are not into sustainable winemaking practices, they’re already on the loosing side, the winners are going to be the ones who start first

    3.wine packaging and distribution
    Sustainability and bag-in-a-box (bib) don’t mix, no matter what Richard Smart and TetraPak (they’re selling their product) say. Bibs are made of plastics (and plastic it sure isn´t eco-friendly) and cardbox has short recicling cycle (meaning paper can only be recicled a couple of times).
    If you want to reduce the energy intensity and increase the sustainabilty of your wine business think cork and glass (glass can be recicled almost ad infinitum and it´s a inert material and cork, well, it´s the definition of big business sustainability…)

    Well, this came down to a lenghty comment (and there´s so much more we could talk about, but unfortunately I wasn’t able to attend the conference)…

    btw, nice interview with Sancho Campo!

    I’ll be waiting on your saturday posts.

    regards,
    M.

    ps: congrats for your fine blog!
    pps: btw it looks like you could need a small help with your wiki, but i’ll talk to you on another ocasion…

  • http://www.passionatefoodie.blogspot.com RichardA

    Ryan and Gabriella:
    Did you notice a lack of attendence/participation by Spainards? Decanter magazine claimed there was a lack of interest of Spainards to this conference. (http://www.decanter.com/news/180866.html)

    Richard

  • Ryan

    Yeah Richard we read that too, as to our experience we definately saw a problem there, and will be show casing it in the videos we did at the conference. Really we have soooooooooo much yet to say, this was a really great event as far as starting a dialouge….stay tuned!

  • http://www.obiscoito.com Ryan

    Yeah Richard we read that too, as to our experience we definately saw a problem there, and will be show casing it in the videos we did at the conference. Really we have soooooooooo much yet to say, this was a really great event as far as starting a dialouge….stay tuned!

  • Gabriella Opaz

    Miguel, First off, thank you for your lengthy comment. We are big supporters of lengthy comments, because it means that you're willing to dialogue with us, which is the whole point of blogging, no?! So with that, thanks for your short novel and your very appreciated comment on our blog ;-) In response to your comments, allow me to tackle each one as they were proposed to us at the conference. 1. If there is one message we were able to take away from this conference, it was that there isn't a scientist out there who doesn't agree that the climate is changing. This cannot be debated at this point. What they aren't clear on is whether humans are the cause of this situation, and if so, how can we mitigate it as quickly as possible. That said, because scientists agree that climate change is occurring, adaption is inevitable whether we like it or not. Hence, the continuing sound bites about how wineries can make changes now to prepare for the future. What bothered me was that I wanted more concrete tools of things I could do on a personal level, as a writer and as Spanish resident now to mitigate the problem. So have I walked away with new tools? We'll leave that for our future post ;-) 2. As you may have seen in the following post, there were concerns from wineries that the profit wouldn't outweigh the investment in sustainable winemaking practices. However, if we use the incredible success of both Banrock Station and Torres as examples of leaders in sustainable winemaking, there is no debate that profits will roll in through marketing alone as people seek out eco-friendly wines. So, Miguel, you are dead on that eco-friendly wineries will be the wave of the future, and it will only be a short period of time before the customers begin seeking it out as their way of contributing to the global effort against climate change! 3. Here's the issue with cork and glass. As you know wineries want the security that their wines are safe, which some cork companies have not provided. However, it is indisputable that cork is the most eco-friendly closure we can choose, as cork oak acts as one large carbon sink, unlike screwcaps which simply pump additional carbon into the air. So with cork, there is no argument, but glass on the other hand, is expensive to recycle and requires a considerable amount of water. Additionally, because weighs a considerable amount, it requires more packaging to keep it safe, and it is more expensive to transport because of weight. Hence, the issue as we understand it. Thanks again and please chime in anytime ;-)

  • http://www.catavino.net Gabriella Opaz

    Miguel,

    First off, thank you for your lengthy comment. We are big supporters of lengthy comments, because it means that you’re willing to dialogue with us, which is the whole point of blogging, no?! So with that, thanks for your short novel and your very appreciated comment on our blog ;-)

    In response to your comments, allow me to tackle each one as they were proposed to us at the conference.

    1. If there is one message we were able to take away from this conference, it was that there isn’t a scientist out there who doesn’t agree that the climate is changing. This cannot be debated at this point. What they aren’t clear on is whether humans are the cause of this situation, and if so, how can we mitigate it as quickly as possible. That said, because scientists agree that climate change is occurring, adaption is inevitable whether we like it or not. Hence, the continuing sound bites about how wineries can make changes now to prepare for the future. What bothered me was that I wanted more concrete tools of things I could do on a personal level, as a writer and as Spanish resident now to mitigate the problem. So have I walked away with new tools? We’ll leave that for our future post ;-)

    2. As you may have seen in the following post, there were concerns from wineries that the profit wouldn’t outweigh the investment in sustainable winemaking practices. However, if we use the incredible success of both Banrock Station and Torres as examples of leaders in sustainable winemaking, there is no debate that profits will roll in through marketing alone as people seek out eco-friendly wines. So, Miguel, you are dead on that eco-friendly wineries will be the wave of the future, and it will only be a short period of time before the customers begin seeking it out as their way of contributing to the global effort against climate change!

    3. Here’s the issue with cork and glass. As you know wineries want the security that their wines are safe, which some cork companies have not provided. However, it is indisputable that cork is the most eco-friendly closure we can choose, as cork oak acts as one large carbon sink, unlike screwcaps which simply pump additional carbon into the air. So with cork, there is no argument, but glass on the other hand, is expensive to recycle and requires a considerable amount of water. Additionally, because weighs a considerable amount, it requires more packaging to keep it safe, and it is more expensive to transport because of weight. Hence, the issue as we understand it.

    Thanks again and please chime in anytime ;-)

  • Pingback: Pancho Campo Poses a Question for Al Gore on Wine and Market Choices

  • Miguel

    Gabriela and Ryan Thanks for your reply. Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer. I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I'm studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects. Now for the notes. 1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren't clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50's american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea. Anyway, I don't mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there's a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (<a href="<a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)<br…/>”><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)<br…/> 2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (<a href="http://www.fetzer.com) “>http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they're already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral. 3. I didn't thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It's a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (<a href="<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)<br />”><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)<br /> It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-). M. ps: Congrats again. You're doing the best reports of the conference (I haven't yet seen another one on the web that beats yours). pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?

  • Miguel

    Gabriela and Ryan Thanks for your reply. Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer. I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I'm studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects. Now for the notes. 1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren't clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50's american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea. Anyway, I don't mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there's a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (<a href="<a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)<br…/>”><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)<br…/> 2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (<a href="http://www.fetzer.com) “>http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they're already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral. 3. I didn't thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It's a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (<a href="<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)<br />”><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)<br /> It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-). M. ps: Congrats again. You're doing the best reports of the conference (I haven't yet seen another one on the web that beats yours). pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?

  • Miguel

    Gabriela and Ryan Thanks for your reply. Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer. I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I'm studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects. Now for the notes. 1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren't clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50's american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea. Anyway, I don't mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there's a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (<a href="<a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)<br…/>”><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)<br…/> 2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (<a href="http://www.fetzer.com) “>http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they're already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral. 3. I didn't thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It's a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (<a href="<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)<br />”><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)<br /> It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-). M. ps: Congrats again. You're doing the best reports of the conference (I haven't yet seen another one on the web that beats yours). pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?

  • Miguel

    Gabriela and Ryan Thanks for your reply. Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer. I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I'm studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects. Now for the notes. 1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren't clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50's american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea. Anyway, I don't mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there's a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (<a href="<a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)<br…/>”><a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)<br…/> 2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (<a href="http://www.fetzer.com) “>http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they're already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral. 3. I didn't thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It's a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (<a href="<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)<br />”><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)<br /> It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-). M. ps: Congrats again. You're doing the best reports of the conference (I haven't yet seen another one on the web that beats yours). pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?

  • Miguel

    Gabriela and Ryan

    Thanks for your reply.

    Just a few more notes on the issues raised, but first a (kind of) disclaimer.
    I studied meteorology and physics of climate (and did some research work, not much though), and presently I’m studying wine science (enology and viticulture) so I tend to be a bit to picky when it comes to these subjects.

    Now for the notes.

    1. Gabriela, excuse me but you are wrong when you say that scientists aren’t clear on whether humans are the cause of the current climatic changes we are experiencing. About 99.9% of the science community is certain that the release of huge amounts of ghg to the atmosphere as caused by human activities is having a clear and discernible effect on climate. And this is rather old news (although politicians tend say otherwise). Already in the 19th century a swedish chemist, Svante Arrenhius raised the issue, and by the 50′s american scientits (Roger Revelle, David Kealing and others) had already scientific data to support this idea.
    Anyway, I don’t mean to bother you with these issues but if you want to know more there’s a little book (The discovery of global warming) by a physicist turned historian (Spencer Weart) that tells the whole story. Or his site at the American Institute of Physics. (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html)

    2. Another nice example would be Fetzer Vineyards. (http://www.fetzer.com) I believe that they’re already claimming that they are completly carbon neutral.

    3. I didn’t thought about the issue of glass weight and associated packaging and transport costs, but I am sure it can be offset. It’s a question of doing the maths of glass and cork vs bibs (how much water and energy you need to produce, package and transport both). One of the problems with non-reciclable materials is that they eventualy end up here. (http://tinyurl.com/2xx234)

    It looks like that lenghty comments might become a habit ;-).

    M.

    ps: Congrats again. You’re doing the best reports of the conference (I haven’t yet seen another one on the web that beats yours).
    pps: by change any interview (or post) with Greg Jones?

  • Gabriella Opaz

    Miguel: 1. Never feel like you have to excuse yourself. I happily accept the times when I am wrong, and this appears to be one of them, but it leaves me confused. Why? Because the above mentioned was repeated more than once. So it leaves me puzzled? Any ideas why were give this message or why there might be debate? 3. I am going to get on the ball here, and see if I can't get a glass expert chatting with us on this issue. I'm extremely curious as well. PS. NOOOOO, how sad that we were not able to drum him up. But let's see if I can't get him over here to chat with us as well!! If you have any questions for him, let me know, and I'll see what I can do. And Miguel, thank you for the compliment. I really appreciate it, and we do to try to offer interesting and thought provoking content. Of course, it is also people like yourself willing to step up with their thoughts and opinions that truly make our discussions interesting. Cheers.

  • http://www.catavino.net Gabriella Opaz

    Miguel:

    1. Never feel like you have to excuse yourself. I happily accept the times when I am wrong, and this appears to be one of them, but it leaves me confused. Why? Because the above mentioned was repeated more than once. So it leaves me puzzled? Any ideas why were give this message or why there might be debate?

    3. I am going to get on the ball here, and see if I can’t get a glass expert chatting with us on this issue. I’m extremely curious as well.

    PS. NOOOOO, how sad that we were not able to drum him up. But let’s see if I can’t get him over here to chat with us as well!! If you have any questions for him, let me know, and I’ll see what I can do.

    And Miguel, thank you for the compliment. I really appreciate it, and we do to try to offer interesting and thought provoking content. Of course, it is also people like yourself willing to step up with their thoughts and opinions that truly make our discussions interesting. Cheers.

  • Pingback: How do We Teach other Old World Winemakers New Tricks?

  • Pingback: Do you Think Wineries Should Focus on Adaptation, Rather than Prevention? Interview with Richard Smart and Miguel Torres

  • Miguel

    Gabriella This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never… It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio “>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate. Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change. The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science). Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics…). Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write…). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time! Cheers. M.

  • Miguel

    Gabriella This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never… It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio “>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate. Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change. The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science). Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics…). Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write…). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time! Cheers. M.

  • Miguel

    Gabriella This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never… It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio “>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate. Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change. The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science). Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics…). Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write…). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time! Cheers. M.

  • Miguel

    Gabriella This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never… It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio “>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate. Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change. The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science). Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it's rather fascinating (the science and the politics…). Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write…). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time! Cheers. M.

  • Miguel

    Gabriella

    This reply comes a bit late, but better late than never…

    It´s rather timely that ask why there might be a debate, because a couple of weeks ago I came across (via Scientific American blog) a lecture by science historian Naomi Oreskes at UCSD ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio ) where she gives a couple of reasons why there might be a debate.
    Basically what she says (supported by very good research) is that the people and the methods behind the denial of the cancer links with smoke and the defence of the Strategic Defence Iniciative (Star Wars under Reagan presidency), are the same behind the denial of climate change.
    The whole idea is to stress the incertitudes of the details of the current scientific knowledge (incertitudes which are something that is deeply embeded in the scientific method, i.e., there are no absolute truths in science).

    Although the lecture is almost an hour long, it’s rather fascinating (the science and the politics…).

    Btw, it looks like that you got Greg Jones to speak (write…). Awesome!!! Your blog just keeps getting better all the time!

    Cheers.
    M.

  • Pingback: Water Conservation versus Consumption: The Age Old Issue of Ignorace and Habit