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

21–30 of 622 posts

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

#21

Post by fladrif »

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…

Is that accurate? I can't believe that decomposition releases _all_ of the carbon into the atmosphere. Certainly a good amount of it is sequestered into the ground (e.g. coal). Thus a standing forest is never completely carbon neutral.

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

#22

Post by dalbasal »

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…

We could make oil or coal and put it under the ground.

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

#23

Post by loceng »

piokoch wrote: post #14

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 them…

It's because they're fighting the arguably true reality that the majority of their furniture is designed to be disposable, and consumers are generally fine with that. I'd like to be wrong, though until we require companies to be responsible for all costs associated with the full lifecycle of a product so externalized costs are incorporated, we're not going to develop the most sustainable practices.

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

#25

Post by namdnay »

piokoch wrote: post #14

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 them…

I guess the argument would go that we would be better off building small quantities of long-lasting re-usable furniture, rather than building and throwing away lots of new cheaper furniture

The low prices at Ikea and others definitely encourage over-consumption - buying a new table instead of restoring an old one for example

Personally I don't necessarily subscribe to this argument, I think that we can focus on bigger sources of pollution/waste than transporting flatpack lumber, but I can see the argument

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

#27

Post by mstokholm »

piokoch wrote: post #14

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 them…

Well, just because they're producing something useful doesn't mean they can't give back at the same time! Small changes add up.

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

#28

Post by namdnay »

fimdomeio wrote: post #13

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…

There seems to be a misconception that Ikea is all cheap composite. It's really not true, they cover a wide range, and they have full-wood models for nearly all product categories

Obviously most people buy the cheap stuff, but that's the case of any low/medium end furniture chain really

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

#29

Post by xyzzy123 »

loceng wrote: post #23
piokoch wrote: post #14

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 them…

It's because they're fighting the arguably true reality that the majority of their furniture is designed to be disposable, and consumers are generally fine with that. I'd like to be wrong, though until we require companies to be responsible for all costs associated with the full lifecycle of a product so externalized costs are incorporated, we're not going to develop the most sustainable practices.

I think this is not as easy a calculus as one might imagine.

Heirloom furniture is in some ways less sustainable than Ikea products. I am not sure there would be enough sustainable hardwood in the world to meet demand at the scale of Ikea.

People have different furniture needs than they did decades ago, and in terms of weight, logistics, material use, Ikea are quite efficient.

Post reply on HN