Conclusions

As with most intellectual odysseys, I started the journey with much more confidence in the subject than when I came home. I thought that problem was just simply the contrasting interests of environmentalists and business models. Diving deeper into the murky waters of ideology, I soon found myself confronted by a brick wall of cognitive dissonance. How could I possibly understand and critique the atmosphere of vineyard philosophy without being a wine drinker and enthusiast myself? It's so easy to just reflect upon preconceived bias and develop self prophetic theses, but this project really opened my eyes to many different points of view that definitely changed my subsequent conclusions. Visiting Circle Oaks was definitely the biggest mental trip for me. I could just feel a sociocultural bias. It made me think of stereotypes in a whole new way. There was nothing said by anyone at Circle Oaks that would be indicative of racism or xenophobia, but a feeling alone was enough to spook me. There are just so many ways of looking at the world. - Brian

The story of forest to vineyard conversions--in California if not the rest of the world where grapes are harvested--has a lot of the same themes as most stories of man's meddling with nature. Reaping immense monetary reward while disregarding social and environmental consequences. Offering toothless solutions to invariably convoluted problems to appear conscientious of one's actions. Making decisions that affect a much larger whole than the parts who are involved in the process. And though my rhetoric undeniably bears the sting of my juvenile environmental consciousness, I have to take a step back and acknowledge the choices being made. Major wine conglomerates, hiding behind the illusion of small-time, family operations, are taking advantage of the legal loopholes designed to keep Sonoma County's agriculture business afloat in order to push their bottom line at the expense of wildlife habitats, the resilience of the landscape, and water resources--but they are making a tremendous amount of capital. This money fuels our economy and undoubtedly pays the salary of someone I know. But I cannot call this sustainable. There is no way we can keep this up at the rate we're going. While the economic incentive is indeed tantalizing, it can never exceed the damage it causes. There are efforts being made to make sustainable vineyards a reality, but until we can readily identify what "sustainability" means we'll only be grasping for a hand in the dark. I propose a definition that I heard from a lecturer named Brock Dolman: he says that sustainability is when your input into one system produces output in another, and if your input into one system is polluting another, stop. Every action, be it reclaiming wastewater for irrigation, participating in dry farming, or sequestering carbon with oak trees should generate positive output (no net loss), and there should be policies in place to encourage these practices. And though it may not be feasible for everyone, this philosophy should permeate not only commercial vineyards but our everyday lives. Small changes in our perspectives can amount to large changes overall, and soon sustainability will no longer be some nebulous concept suspended in the void.

-Brandon