As the world grows more conscious of the earth’s fragility, I continue to be amazed at the utter disregard for the environment that some wineries have.

I’m referring to the weight and thickness of some of the bottles that now house some of our most expensive wines.

 I recall the days when a box of wine, containing 12 bottles and the liquid inside them, weighed 34 pounds. This meant that bottles weighed 2 pounds, 13 ounces each. Bottles were made of a lighter glass; they were slightly smaller around than the bigger bottles of today, and they held up just fine.

A bottle of a supposedly great Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon was recently released that weighed in at 4 pounds, 2 ounces. Also, I recently saw a Chilean cabernet weighing 4 pounds, 4.5 ounces. A box of that wine would weigh more than 51 pounds.

A pallet of wine normally holds 56 cases of wine. Using the former weight, a pallet would weigh 1,904 pounds. A pallet of the Chilean wine I mentioned would weigh 2,856 pounds. The additional 952 pounds per pallet require much more fuel to transport.

The additional glass used is greater than that used in the lighter-weight bottle and landfill requirements for it are greater. (And, not incidentally, the Chilean bottle is so fat around that it does not fit in standard wine racks).

Wine once was a simple thing. It was called Burgundy or claret (if it was red) and Chablis or Sauterne if it was white. Burgundy came in a plain, slope-shouldered bottle; so did Chablis. Claret came in a sharp-shouldered bottle. If it was called a Rhine wine, it was in a taller bottle called a hock. All bottles were modest in size and weight.

As the years passed, U.S. wine makers became more creative. The first “fancy” bottles, which came in about the mid-1970s, had a punt — an indentation in the bottom. Pretty soon, everyone was using punt-bottomed bottles. As a result, weights went up.

But that wasn’t enough. Some wineries had to make the bottles look fancier, much the same way perfume makers justify selling what is essentially an inexpensive liquid for a lot of money.

Traditional wine bottles had been about 11 inches tall. By the 1980s, bottles began to grow in height. Today, most cabernets are in 12- and 13-inch bottles. Others are 14 inches high. And with this added height there’s an added weight.

 Not long ago, a reader from Florida said he had found that his standard built-in wine rack no longer accommodated many of the bottles he was buying. They are too fat.

This silliness doesn’t affect only cabernet. I’ve seen this with expensive pinot noirs from California. And producers of other wines are also jumping on this dumb bandwagon.

Not only is this an inconsiderate move by wineries, but it can hurt sales. How many retail clerks like hauling around the heavier boxes? And a server with a slight build once told me confidentially she couldn’t pour the new bottles except to patrons “on (my) side of the table. I can’t hold the new bottles when I have to pour on the other side of the table.”

And what does this do to the environment?

If the wine industry wants to announce to the consumer that it is “going organic” and being sensitive to the use of pesticides and other chemicals, then it can make an even stronger “green” statement by switching to lighter-weight bottles that use less glass, cost less to manufacture, stack more efficiently and use less fossil fuel to ship.

 Wine of the Week: 2005 Red Truck Merlot, California ($12) — Superb, rich fruit aroma with cherry and blueberry. It has not only a soft entry, but also a good solid structure to work nicely with foods. Aeration helps expand this wine, making it even rounder and more succulent.

 Dan Berger resides in Sonoma County. Berger publishes a weekly newsletter on wine and can be reached at danberger@Vin tageExperiences.com.