IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
goodnewsnetwork.org
IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
1–10 of 622 posts
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#2the forest was bought by IKEA as part of a strategy to reduce more carbon than it creates through its value chain
They might want to write that into their books, but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale.
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#3the forest was bought by IKEA as part of a strategy to reduce more carbon than it creates through its value chain They might want to write that into their books, but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale.
Its yearly co2 consumption that they are responsible for sustaining. The plants are already consuming co2, this way that will continue to be the case.
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#4the forest was bought by IKEA as part of a strategy to reduce more carbon than it creates through its value chain They might want to write that into their books, but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale.
Well, if that move keeps it from being cut (as evidently was the case), I'd prefer this over the unhealthy new forests that are ecologically unsound but are purely for bookkeeping CO2.
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#5How much would buying all the Brazilian rain forest cost the world, or even renting it from Brazil? We would need it to be slightly more than cattle farming to work... but I’d happily pay towards this.
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#6the forest was bought by IKEA as part of a strategy to reduce more carbon than it creates through its value chain They might want to write that into their books, but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale.
> but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale.
A forest that is left untouched acts as a CO2 sink by photosynthesis and "capturing" the CO2 as bio-mass.
A re-forestation of land previously used for agriculture acts as a bigger CO2 sink because the potential for biomass capture is greater there.
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#7Somewhat related. IKEA is the largest owner of forests in Lithuania (around 33% of the total land area is forest):
https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1104260/ikea-the-bi...
At the time of this article (2019), they owned 66,000 acres of forest in the country.
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#8the forest was bought by IKEA as part of a strategy to reduce more carbon than it creates through its value chain They might want to write that into their books, but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale.
Its yearly co2 consumption that they are responsible for sustaining. The plants are already consuming co2, this way that will continue to be the case.
Forests are not perpetual carbon sinks, as trees eventually die and then decompose, releasing their carbon back into the atmosphere.
At best, a young and growing forest can be a temporary carbon sink, until it reaches maturity (and steady state).
Alternatively, a forest might support continual carbon sinking if and only if the recently dead and/or mature trees were somehow harvested and treated/stored in such a way that their carbon would not decompose and re-enter the rest of the biosphere.
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#9the forest was bought by IKEA as part of a strategy to reduce more carbon than it creates through its value chain They might want to write that into their books, but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale.
Its yearly co2 consumption that they are responsible for sustaining. The plants are already consuming co2, this way that will continue to be the case.
The plants are not really consuming CO2 in a grown forest, or more accurately they are consuming and releasing CO2 at the same rate.
A growing forest does consume CO2 more than it releases, but it does not seem to be the case now
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#10Somewhat related. IKEA is the largest owner of forests in Lithuania (around 33% of the total land area is forest): https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1104260/ikea-the-bi... At the time of this article (2019), they owned 66,000 acres of forest in the country.
Damn, love these little/random facts about my mother country.