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

71–80 of 622 posts

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

#71

Post by j1elo »

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 this has started, indeed. In Spain, one of the Twitter trending topics is a promoted Ikea hashtag loosely translated to "unknowingly being an activist"... so I'm assuming it refers to this movement

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

#72

Post by trymas »

oblio wrote: post #67
melomal wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn, love these little/random facts about my mother country.

Well, if it helps, they're the biggest land (forest?) owner in Romania, too. They own something like 50 000 hectares. It's probably not 1/3rd of Romania, we're a bit bigger :-p

OP meant, that LTU has about 1/3rd of forests of it's land area. Ikea is the biggest owner of forests at 270sq.km. Whole LTU area is around ~65000sq.km., i.e. forests a bit more than 20000sq.km.

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

#73

Post by WalterBright »

jacquesm wrote: post #55
xyzzy123 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The biggest problem is that furniture, instead of a class of objects with longevity and functionality has now become a fashion article, and IKEA is a large factor in that shift.

I buy utility furniture at the thrift store. When I'm done with it, it goes back to the thrift store :-)

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

#74

Post by dmurray »

fy20 wrote: post #7

Somewhat 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.

This seems a little misleading. 66,000 acres would be 270 sq km, 33% of the country is 22,000 sq km so IKEA owns just over 1% of the forested land.

IKEA is the largest private forester but most of Lithuania's forests are owned by the state [0] and overseen by various state bodies, some of whom operate them as commercial concerns including, almost certainly, selling timber to IKEA.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_in_Lithuania

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

#75

Post by bombcar »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #29
loceng wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a world of difference between Ikea particleboard crap and heirloom furniture - you can make quite useful and durable furniture from pine board; Ikea actually does (though they could stand to spend some time on the design, the IVAR system is BY FAR the worst storage related problem I've ever dealt with; tossed that into the fire and got Uline wire shelves instead).

Moving the lifecycle of a piece of furniture from 3-5 years closer to 20 is highly worth it; even if I no longer need it I prefer to leave it on the curb for someone else than have to shove it into the trash can. And these metal shelves will last longer than I will - and can move to the garage if I no longer need them.

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

#76

Post by WalterBright »

namdnay wrote: post #25
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 bigge…

A friend of mine who moved across country a few times tells me it is cheaper to throw furniture away and rebuy it than ship it.

(Throwing it away also includes giving it to the thrift store.)

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

#77

Post by bombcar »

michaelgrafl wrote: post #65
Melting_Harps wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This smells like some really bold and really ridiculous PR attempt. Of course it is, they just use illegal loggers in Romania to offset their actual need for the crappy disposable stuff they produce. They seem to get away with that no problem, despite EU restrictions on it. I've never seen the appeal of IKEA when it came to furniture, the long lines at some of the bigger ones I've been to (for breakfast) are baffli…

Because Ikea is the only affordable furniture chain that makes good looking furniture. By that I mean that Ikea furniture doesn't chase current trends the way all the other big chains do (I'm in Austria). So buying furniture from Ikea means that you can use it for a long time without your home looking from a certain area. Also, going to Ikea with kids is a great experience. It's almost like going to a theme park, and…

Honestly the (nearly) unchanging availability is the main selling point - you can buy something today and buy something in a few years that will match (though what you bought today may have broken if you had to move).

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

#78

Post by afarrell »

helmholtz wrote: post #36
xyzzy123 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The complication is EXACTLY why we need to be even more in panic and hair-on-fire about environmental issues. A colleague did some analyses for the life cycle emissions of refrigerants. The complexity in the process was absurd, and basically intractable without simplifications. How much indirect CO2 emissions are caused by an inefficient compressor? How much does it depend on how you generate electricity? Which count…

> even more in panic and hair-on-fire about environmental issues

Panic is rarely useful. It might lead you to move at high and low velocity.

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

#79

Post by bombcar »

bayindirh wrote: post #48
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…

> Aren't those peaces of furniture made of composite materials and those not so sturdy shelves. I'd gladly invite to my study, which is decorated using IKEA Galant (office) furniture. Every item in the set is high density wood composite and tables are built upon steel structures. They would outlast my children easily if they're not abused on purpose. Or my Kitchen, which is again built by IKEA with high density compo…

"If not abused on purpose" is the problem - things DO get abused and once engineered wood products start to degrade there's no stopping it.

And if water gets in and doesn't get removed immediately you're in for a world of excitement.

Given that kitchens are remodeled every 7-10 years "on average" paying for solid wood/plywood might not be worth it. But there's a reason commercial kitchens are stainless steel.

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

#80

Post by kleiba »

osobo wrote: post #4
kleiba wrote: post #2

the 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.

Huh? That move is exactly pure bookkeeping CO2.
Post reply on HN