Champagne Gets a Green Makeover

You won't necessarily notice it, but your Champagne is about to get greener. Champagne producers have recently standardized a new lighter-weight bottle designed to reduce carbon emissions generated during transport by 8,000 metric tons annually - the equivalent of taking 4,000 cars off the road.
Sure, you say, another group of producers jumping on the green bandwagon. But this was no easy feat. Each bottle of bubbly contains 6 Gs of force -- for the non-rocket scientists among us, that's about 60 pounds of pressure per square inch, similar to the pressure found in a tire on an 18-wheeler. So the bottles are thick and heavy for a reason. However, working with local glass designers, the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (CIVC), the region's trade group, was able to shave about 2 ounces from the glass bottle without compromising safety. The lighter weight allows producers to pack more bottles per truckload or container, cutting down on the number of shipments.
The move is part of a broader initiative by Champagne makers to cut carbon emissions by 25% by 2020, and a whopping 75% by 2050.
That's just one of many steps the industry is taking. Champagne makers are also working to reduce emissions generated in the vineyards, by cutting down on the use of pesticides and fertilizer (which are made with petroleum derivatives), using more biofuels, and encouraging winemakers to ditch their generations-old equipment for newer, more efficient machines (a sort of Gallic Cash for Clunkers).
The new eco-friendly bottles have been tested and are already in circulation. But starting with this year's harvest, the lighter bottle will become standard. Since Champagne is aged for at least 18 months before being released onto the market, by 2012 or 2013, the switchover for non-vintage Champagnes, which make up 85% of the market, should be complete.
Now that's something to toast to.
Dozens Killed in Oklahoma Tornado; Death Toll to Rise
Justin Bieber Booed, Gets Standing Ovation at Billboard Music Awards
2013 Billboard Music Awards Best and Worst Dressed
Watch: Kansas Meteorologist Seeks Shelter From Tornado
Two Pilots Fired After Brazilian Pop Star Takes Captain's Seat Mid-Flight
Oldest Water on Earth Found Deep Underground
2013 Billboard Music Awards: All the Winners!
Selena Gomez Leaving Justin Bieber's House: Booty Call Rumors Swirl
Walmart Workers Pessimistic About The Company's Future
South American 'Crazy' Ants Are a Threat in Southern US
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Joe Palen Apr 24th 2010 11:28PM
I am not a rocket scientist, just a retired engineer, but I am confused about 6 G = 60 psi. Do you mean 6 times the weight of the liquid, which would be less than 60 psi, or 6 times atmospheric pressure, which would be 90 psi)? Or something else? Or is that why rockets often do not perform well?
Master Shake Apr 25th 2010 1:27AM
@Joe Palen - your confusion is understandable since the author made two mistakes, not one. Champagne is pressurized at 80psi on average (some as high as 100psi), which is 6 atmospheres (not 6 G). Actually the author made yet another mistake, because big rig truck tires can be inflated anywhere from 30 to 100psi, depending on the type of tire, the load and expected road conditions. American journalists are virtually never hired based on either knowledge or academic achievements. Now couple that with the 2009 PISA study of global educational standards, where the United States was ranked #25 out of 28 nations at the high school graduate level of study, and it is no surprise that you find such glaring mistakes in an article that is intended to be informative. It would be funny if it weren't for what this said about the future of America.