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

111–120 of 622 posts

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

#111

Post by KorematsuFred »

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…

> 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?

Unfortunately we live in a world where virtue signaling is more important than actual virtues and winning arguments is more important than actual winning. Yes this is a PR thing and will help to create a positive public image that IKEA hopes will help them thwart the evil eyes of the rent seeking politicians.

Note: A tree is useful and carbon negative only if it is growing a tree in forest that has stopped growing is mostly useless for offsetting carbon, if anything we need a Logging 2.0 where we cut down a lot of trees and use them for long term purposes such as furniture, housing, infrastructure etc. and plant and grow new trees.

> Why they have to explain themselves for doing something useful?

They don't have to and neither does Amazon, Google, Exxon and thousand other companies have to explain anything to the public or govermint and yet you see so many attempts by government and activists to force them to explain.

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

#112

Post by pembrook »

jamisteven wrote: post #64

This is laughable, they do this all the time in Romania just to chop down half the trees to build shitty bookshelves.

Trees are a renewable resource. They grow back!

And those shitty bookshelves are way more biodegradable than if they were made out of any other material like plastic.

Proper forestry practices are much more common today even in developing countries than you think.

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

#113

Post by namdnay »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #51
namdnay wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Buying new stuff in the west is now cheaper than repairing old items - this is a combination of outsourcing production, loosing skills, and deliberate efforts by compabies like Apple and Sonor to make their equipment unrepairable. https://youtu.be/Npd_xDuNi9k

And the fact that the environmental impact isn't factored into the cost

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

#114

Post by audunw »

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…

I think making things in the way that minimises the impact at production time is the most important thing right now. Population growth is still a thing. Many people are buying furniture for the first time. If you start using hardwood for all furniture it could easily be devastating to the worlds forests.

> And then it it all ends it can became firewood, which ikea furniture can't.

Of course it can. You wouldn't burn it in a fireplace, but then fireplace is very inefficent way to burn things anyway. If you burn it in a trash burning facilities like they have in Sweden, you get the most energy out of it, you can heat local homes with waste heat in winter, and it creates less pollution (fire places are being banned in dense urban areas where I'm from). It's a fairly good solution for the seasonal energy demand in northern areas.

I personally think IKEAs approach is realistically the most sustainable, but they could improve it by improving the recycling/reuse of the wood fibers in their products.

I've used and refurbished old solid wood furniture myself. It's a luxury IMO. There's not that much of it to go around. It doesn't scale. It's not a solution to the worlds problem.

I also think the quality issues of IKEA furniture is exaggerated. I have a cheap TV table I bought as a student 15 years ago. It has been moved around several times. Seen a lot of abuse. I didn't really have a use for it in our new home so I've used it as a tool table while renovating. It still looks fine. A tiny bit bent, but still good. Can probably give it to another student to use.

If you want to say that buying long-lasting furniture is significantly better, I think you need to point to a study showing how many resources each approach uses, and the average life-span in the real-world. It's far from obvious that solid furniture is better.

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

#115

Post by namibj »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #49
Dylan16807 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they weren't suggesting individual purchases. A very large group doing a very large purchase can buy cost-effective security.

> A very large group doing a very large purchase can buy cost-effective security. That really depends on how much they want the security. People defend territory all the time. It's very, very expensive to do that -- have a look at some city walls -- but it's cost-effective because they are using the territory. But no, no matter how large the group, they cannot buy cost-effective security for their giant stretch of wi…

If the area is large enough, they could actually make a literal border around it, and use change detection via satellites to notice potential settlements/activity on the inside.

You probably need a watch tower about every 1~2 km, or even less if you'd use a strip of minefield to protect against hordes.

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

#116

Post by loceng »

baxtr wrote: post #96
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.

The resale value of my Ikea stuff was quite high. This doesn’t support your argument, at least for my region and IKEA.

One factor missing from conversation is timescale.

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

#117

Post by MagnumOpus »

fladrif wrote: post #21
carpdiem wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are a bit out of date on this, wood isn't really turning into coal anymore these days, since bacteria and fungi have developed the ability to decompose lignin 300Ma ago.

The only thing comparable these days is peat bogs that act as carbon sinks (because their plant matter does not decompose due to acidic and anaerobic environment).

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

#118

Post by adrian_b »

namdnay wrote: post #28
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

Yes, indeed, Ikea furniture covers a wide range.

For example, my most recent purchase from Ikea was one year ago, when I bought a couple of tables made of steel, on which I keep some E-ATX computer cases.

Those steel tables look like they should last more than a human lifetime.

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

#119

Post by loceng »

arcticbull wrote: post #100
fastball wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence why the real solution has always been: 1. Electrify everything possible 2. Shift all electricity production to renewables, massively increase power output with nuclear nuclear nuclear. 3. Carbon capture.

Ooh and stop mining Bitcoin

But how else will people make money than in a global, decentralized pyramid/MLM scheme?

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

#120

Post by calvano915 »

baxtr wrote: post #96
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.

The resale value of my Ikea stuff was quite high. This doesn’t support your argument, at least for my region and IKEA.

Idea has levels of quality. But some must view it all as disposable and low quality because how else could they justify spending 3x or more at other furniture stores. Most shop at Ikea for affordability, style options, and a good return guarantee.
Post reply on HN