Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

goodnewsnetwork.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 622 posts

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#11

Post by teekert »

carpdiem wrote: post #8
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Yes. We should build more using Wood and less using Concrete.

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#13

Post by fimdomeio »

I have a problem with IKEA. Aren't those peaces of furniture made of composite materials and those not so sturdy shelves a sustainability problem when compared to traditional furniture making which is mostly wood glue a protective coat which lasts for hundreds of years can be infinitely repaired in a workshop with some basic tools. And then it it all ends it can became firewood, which ikea furniture can't.

Shouldn't they start fixing the world there?

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#14

Post by piokoch »

This smells like some really bold and really ridiculous PR attempt.

"Ikea uses about one percent—yes, one percent—of the world's entire commercial wood supply. That amounts to about 17.8 million cubic yards of lumber last year. " [1]

I guess they need this PR purchase to appease some eko organization. And this is equally ridiculous.

Ikea is making furniture, something people really need. Why they have to explain themselves for doing something useful? What should they use to produce furniture? Would plastic be any better? Iron? Stone?

[1] https://inhabitat.com/one-percent-of-all-the-worlds-commerci...

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#15

Post by faceplanted »

andy_ppp wrote: post #5

How 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.

You wouldn't just need to buy them, you'd also need to police and monitor them constantly, if you bought them from abroad without further intervention unscrupulous people would just move in and start working the land anyway, and if you can figure out how to police it better than they can you might just be better off developing that.

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#16

Post by throw8932894 »

If you avoid paying taxes, it is easy to be charitable.

Wikipedia: > The IKEA group has a complex corporate structure, which members of the European Parliament have alleged was designed to avoid over €1 billion in tax payments over the 2009–2014 period.[14][15] It is controlled by several foundations based in the Netherlands and Liechtenstein.[16][17]

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#17

Post by thaumasiotes »

andy_ppp wrote: post #5

How 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.

I read an article commenting on "microlending", which came to the conclusion that the concept doesn't really work. Your loan of $3.50 might really mean something to the peasant who receives it. But it means nothing to you, and so microloans end up with no one vetting the borrower for creditworthiness or hassling them to collect. This incentive mismatch ends up spoiling the project; there's no reason for someone not to take out a microloan, drink the money away, and default.

There's a similar problem with your idea. You could buy a stretch of land in Brazil and bask in the glow of taking it off the market. But the problem you perceive with overuse of the Brazilian rainforest wouldn't be solved; that land was mostly not on the market anyway. How would you stop farmers from encroaching on your land? A "No Trespassing" sign won't do the job.

Buying land to prevent development will work better in the US, mostly because there's no one in the US who lives off the land. You can't stop small farmers from moving on to your unsupervised land. But you can easily stop giant logging or mining companies from doing it.

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#18

Post by dalbasal »

andy_ppp wrote: post #5

How 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.

There have been/are efforts like this. I can't comment on successes/failures, but if you want to kick in... this one says $100 saves an acre: https://www.worldlandtrust.org/appeals/buy-an-acre/

Shop around, not all organisations are equal. Also, there is probably similar programs in your area. A lot of good, well established wetland repurchase & conservation efforts in the US.

Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed

#20

Post by chordalkeyboard »

Majestic121 wrote: post #9
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your comment, and the sibling that made similar observations, are correct. But a regulatory system where people are taxed on the net carbon contribution of their holdings is likely to reward them for owning land that is occuppied by plants.
Post reply on HN