How much is a good Pinot worth? Depending on the establishment, a glass can run anywhere from $5.00 to $30.00, a bottle from $25.00 on the very low end to upwards of $123,899 if you ask for 1945 Domaine de la Romanée-Conti Romanée-Conti (with a name that long you'd expect to pay big bucks!).
What you wouldn't expect is the latest MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) on Pinot from the gorgeous, natural environs of Sonoma County in Northern California. Are you sitting down? That Pinot, ladies and gentlemen, is going to run you around 1600-plus acres of freshly mowed-down Redwood forest.
That must be some wine.
Yep, it seems whetted wine drinkers the world over simply can't get enough of the California Pinot grape and so Napa vineyards Artesa (owned by Spain-based wine producers, Codorniu) and Premier Pacific -- both anxious for passionate Pinot commerce -- put their heads together, scouted the grape-friendly nooks and crannies of nearby regions and came up with the stellar proposal to deforest those pristine acres of majestic Redwoods and Douglas Firs in the small town of Annapolis in Sonoma County, CA; a heretofore remote area teeming with protected wildlife, the crystalline clear waterways of the Gualala River, and hills and dales of lush forest.
Now that sounds like an area ripe for destruction, doesn't it? Ironically, they're calling it Preservation Ranch. No, really.
According to a Los Angeles Times article of 8/25, A Tale of Grape versus Redwood, the response by Sonoma County Wine Grape Commission President, Nick Frey, to the query of "why there?" was: "It's an area of second-growth trees and the whole area, the wine industry here in Sonoma County, has been growing."
Oh, I see.
I guess almost 2000 acres of second growth trees doesn't have quite the cachet of first or old growth forests, is that right, Mr. Frey? Forget the fact that the only reason it's "second growth" is because a successful recovery is underway after the ravages of earlier logging efforts.
Look, I appreciate that people love wine and wine is a growth industry and counties need jobs, and fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, and money makes the world go 'round, but why is it that in spite of ALL other available land in the behemoth state of California, much of it, no doubt, also friendly to the finicky Pinot grape, Artesa and Premier Pacific feel compelled to choose a spot that is home to a large and sensitive ecosystem of flora, fauna and fish to plow down for the sake of grapes? Reflect on the phrase "money makes the world go 'round" and you've pretty much got it.
According to the LA Times article, "One wine getting attention, particularly among restaurant sommeliers, is Pinot Noir.... there is a certain amount of cachet to Pinot Noirs made along the Sonoma Coast." And since Pinot Noir from Sonoma can be sold a bit cheaper than a Cabernet from Napa, whoops, there goes another Redwood tree plant.
The Sonoma brand name. Worth some big, fat, forest-leveling bucks.
People, have we forgotten the lessons of the past?! Remember how concerned we all were about the deforestation of the Amazon rain forest? The documentaries, rock concerts, Sting carrying on, and all that pro-active hooting and hollering about the destruction of what is now almost 20% of an ecosystem described as the "lungs of our planet"? We HAVE forgotten or we could never stand idly by while wealthy winegrowers and commerce-oriented commissions and business folk ignore the greater impact of their bottom line.
Hard to believe that just eleven short years ago there was another Los Angeles Times article, Historic Deal Is Based on Trees' Value in Environment, heralding the "landmark" deal made when Pacific Forest Trust of Santa Rosa, CA, "sold $6000 worth of 'carbon emissions reduction credits' to Green Mountain Energy Co., a Texas-based energy provider that sells power from environmentally friendly sources." A pittance, surely, as compared to the millions Artesa and Pacific Premier stand to make post-deforestation, but the spirit and global understanding of the symbiotic relationship between trees and the greater good of the environment was at least honored in that agreement:
When trees perform photosynthesis, they emit oxygen while absorbing carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping "greenhouse gas," to make their bark, roots, branches and leaves.
Environmentalists increasingly argue forests play a useful role in reducing the risk of climate change, which many scientists believe has been aggravated by emissions of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels.The potential sale of photosynthesis may give trees a new lease on life by establishing a value for standing forests independent of their worth as cut timber.
Forest loss is thought to be the second largest source of world carbon-dioxide emissions, next to the burning of fossil fuels. Trees release stored carbon dioxide when they die. The idea of such purchases is to leave the forests standing.
No small thing, trees.
We've got an earnest task in today's culture, an assignment to clarify and decide just how big or small we want our picture to be. Yes, jobs are needed, unemployment must shrink for the good of the global economy; wise utilization of resources is a must. But there is also an essential responsibility to widen the scope of our concerns to honestly see the long-term impact of the solutions we choose for our immediate problems. Growing a "wine economy" may offer jobs, income and tremendous wealth for a local few, but is destroying a life-sustaining, pristine and irreplaceable forest the moral, ethical and, ultimately, best long-term choice for everyone else?
I don't think so.
Tom Adams, a Preservation Ranch official, made the inexplicable comment, "These forests can be cleared and preserved at the same time," and that struck me as emblematic of the delusional double-speak of too many who can't -- or won't -- make their picture any bigger than the myopia of self-service. The truth is, we cannot destroy and save our planet at the same time. We cannot put all our focus on now at the expense of later. We have to make choices, wise choices, long-lasting, global-preserving choices that find the right balance and sustain us all for as long as the planet is here to house our economies, families, industries, jobs and dreams.
Take a deep breath. "Lungs of the planet," those trees. There for us all. Even the Pinot drinkers.
Other resources:
Preservation Ranch Application Overview
Sonoma County Democratic Party's opposition of record.
Feelin' environmentally feisty? Let your thoughts be known:
Premier Pacific contact information.
Artesa Winery contact information.
Codorniu Spain contact information.
Sonoma County Wine Grape Commission contact information.
Follow Lorraine Devon Wilke on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LorraineDWilke
Gernot Wagner: Ending Planetary Socialism
We just don't care anymore. And by "We", I mean a large majority of Americans. If not majority, definitely seems to be a plurality.
- capturing and developing valuable vineyard lands, to control for future resale or portfolio growth
- capturing global wine market share within their price points
- developing value - real or perceived - in a global market for investors in premium, high-cachet investments
- creating a life-style business (and vacation home and event center if possible) for self-important business successes, with extra capital to invest somewhere. A lot of new vineyards and existing vineyard purchases/consolidations are financed by financial industry wealth, looking for another high yield, high cachet item for their portfolio. Those portfolios have to return well for their investors in a limited period of time: hence irrigated root stock and better living thru chemistry.
Follow the money - this isn't agriculture, it's international, industrial agribusiness combined with the finance industry.
"...why is it that in spite of ALL other available land in the behemoth state of California, much of it, no doubt, also friendly to the finicky Pinot grape, Artesa and Premier Pacific feel compelled to choose a spot that is home to a large and sensitive ecosystem of flora, fauna and fish to plow down for the sake of grapes?"
Which kind of begs the question, which ecosystems, exactly, are you willing to sacrifice for grapes? Arid grasslands? Coastal wetlands? Thriving deserts? Boulder-strewn oak forests? Mountain passes?
Those of us who love the desert as much as you love redwoods are really incensed that so many of the NorCal "enviros" have put a gigantic bulldozer target on our beautiful, functioning, healthy and fragile desert and arid grassland places for Big Solar when we all know that solar can be produced faster, cheaper and cleaner in the built environment. So many are not only willing but EAGER to mulch juvenile (endangered) desert tortoises so that Chevron can produce the solar power instead of US producing it. Why?
Second growth redwood is important, agreed, but so is old-growth Mojave and Colorado desert, as is the Carrizo plain, as are most of the other sites being slated for permanent destruction for Big "renewables." Please make sure to include them in your passionate appeals against industrialization of healthy ecosystems, OK?
Good comment.
(I'm a desert lover, too.)
http://anyshinything.com/2011/09/02/benefits-of-aging/
And we "must destroy this village in order to save it."
And: "We never learn, do we."
Industrial agribusiness profits (for multiplying investors' profits quickly) means finding cheap land and clearing forests. This business model sucks up as much surface and ground water as needed for the vines, including frost and heat 'protection' spraying. This is demonstrated to dry up streams and Russian River mainstem itself, killing federally protected salmon and steelhead.
This industry gets sweetheart deals from county boards of supervisors and planning commissions which regulate virtually all their activities: many get tasting rooms and event centers in rural areas not served by good roads, and without adequate water. Fish and wildlife aren't priorities in the process.
Local US Congressman Mike Thompson takes huge wine industry donations, and returns the favors.
The industry has overplanted irrigated root-stock, depending on large quantities of water and chemicals (thanks to advocacy by UC Davis and Monsanto) to produce crops quicker and more predictably than traditional dry-farmed root-stock. A number of growers now use treated municipal wastewater for irrigation, a practice not legal in traditional appellations in France.
Premium California wines are being destroyed by greedy corporations and allies. Stopping Preservation Ranch (locally known as "Devastation Ranch") can put the brakes on this runaway industry. Follow the corporate wine brands to know their "local" labels.
So, they choose to accelerate it.
BRILLIANT! Wish I'd thought of it.
Read http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2011/03/03/is-there-too-much-pinot-noir-growing-in-california/ and then scratch your head and wonder when it will end.
But it should at least offer a balanced perspective rather than pulling a few quotes out of context. The existing 160 parcels of land are already zoned for logging or residential development, with permits for roads, sewage, etc.
The other side: http://www.preservationranch.org
The project appears to be making a concerted effort to be open with the public. They're conducting dozens of impact studies that will be posted on the website. They propose to create sustainable logging, sustainable/organic vineyards, nature trails, and protected wildlife habitats. Are their claims & promises all valid & enforceable, or just good PR? That's up to the County to decide & manage.
Once consolidated & rezoned, Preservation Ranch asserts that the vineyards would use "less than 10% of the property's total area of 19,652 acres," and that vineyard sites were chosen for minimal impact on the surrounding ecosystem. (What's the impact of clearing trees from ridge tops if more rain and vineyard runoff flow down the hills? Perhaps the county should ask that).
They also plan to plant more trees as part of a sustainable logging program. The rest of the land would be converted to protected wildlife areas and recreation trails, just as much of the various Redwoods state parks are today. If the County includes measures to ensure the developers keep their promises & follow the impact studies, this could be a pretty good plan.
You sound like their PR guy!
What about the people of Annapolis?? Do you think they'd trade off their forest and all the wildlife in the area for a bunch of parks and trees in another part of the state? It's easy to talk about improvements that serve your purpose but that doesn't really and honestly answer the issue of what and where is being destroyed. Someone could promise to build a neat new house across town for other people to enjoy but that wouldn't exactly handle my issues if it was MY house being bulldozed!
It's good that they're being open, that's what they should do. And that openness is causing people to write articles, protest, fight for the conservation they believe in, as they are all over (and it seems many people are against this, despite all the promises of improvements! Look at the "Resources" links under this article.)
"The other side"? There's always another side. But it seems the people most directly impacted by this other side don't necessarily think it's "a pretty good plan."
Maybe smart for publicity, but it's disingenuous to demonize them as anti-environment wine snobs when it seems they've done a lot to incorporate sustainable principles & to mitigate the environmental impacts. Does their proposal do enough? Who could tell from reading this article?
If the proposal turns out to do more harm than good, then the county should deny the permits. It's their responsibility to ensure the permits force the developers to deliver on their promises or else lose their investment. Residents need to hold their reps accountable, to the extent that's possible these days ... But if they only ever hear 1/2 the facts or half-truth arguments, they can't very well make an informed decision.
Time for a boycott of pinot gris!!!
This corporate hack's logic is similar to something I heard way back when...."We must destroy the village to save the village".
This proclamation of deforestation could also be a ploy to fire up conservation groups into paying big bucks to buy the marginal lands from the greedy cretins. This was a successful ploy used by Willits Redwood Company down in Mendocino County. Was also a successful negotiating con used by Pacific Lumber Company to sell the Headwaters Forest Preserve up here in Humboldt County.
Write the involved winery companies stating that you are against this clearing of forest and that you will boycott their product. One might even be able to go into more responsible stores, tell them the tale and maybe the stores will not stock their wines.
There are lots of good wines for your enjoyment.
Wow. "The Lorax" really *was* too deep for adults to grasp
So much for everything I once liked about it.
When vintners are razing land, it's hitting critical mass.
Our democracy no longer works. Our so-called representatives work for their corporate donors. Not us. And they shamelessly work against the public desire.
But, while we have no real power as voting citizens, we have HUGE POWER AS CONSUMERS.
If we unite.
Boycott Artesa, Codorniu, and Premier Pacific.
The next time you are at a restaurant, order a Pinot Noir and explain to one and all why you don't buy these three brands of Pinot. If you see any of these labels on the wine list, tell the restaurant manager or sommelier of your disapproval of these defilers of our environment.
The restaurant business is very PR sensitive. They will notice your complaint.
This is where we can demonstrate real power. We can't control who the money machine puts up as our supposed elected officials. Not when our bought and paid for Supreme Court backs "corporate personhood." But they haven't figured out how to fully control our consumer decisions.
Boycotts are the true democratic answer.
Fanning you.
More feedback needed and appreciated.
Maybe we can get the author of this article involved.
More to come.
Colin Fletcher once compared our species' actions on the globe to those of a cancer. He gets more spot on by the day.