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

131–140 of 622 posts

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

#131

Post by SiempreViernes »

oblio wrote: post #66
jacquesm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IKEA is just as dutch as the Rolling Stones.

Well, it is Dutch. Just saying it isn't doesn't change anything. They're registered in the Netherlands and operate in accordance with Dutch laws.

It's a large group of companies, with various bits of that group registered in various countries and obviously operating (mainly) in accordance with local laws.

Basically "IKEA" as a total entity is split into two parts, one is the stores and things related to that like customer support and property management. That bit is ultimately owned by a Dutch holding company and then a Dutch foundation.

The other bit is "the concept", the design and production of the furniture, and the logistics. That is ultimately owned by Interogo Foundation registered in Liechtenstein.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:IKEA_ownership_chart

In practice it's all controlled by the Kamprad family, which currently live in England and Belgium according to wikipedia.

Reportedly the reason to have ownership in the Netherlands is to avoid taxes, which is a integral piece of the IKEA culture of cheapness.

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

#132

Post by kuschku »

tweetle_beetle wrote: post #128
FriedrichN wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been using a lot of IKEA furniture for many years, some new, some secondhand (sometimes I'm the third or fourth owner) and I must say they're quite durable unlike some of the new furniture I've bought over the year and had to throw away.

The annoying thing about IKEA furniture, and that from competitors, is that all it takes is for a tiny piece of particle board to be damaged internally for the whole item to be useless. Generally, while they are in one piece and not moved, they are fine. But trasnporting or disassembling this stuff is a risk. The tiny wooden pegs, plastic bits and agressive screws going straight into soft board can rip out chunks, sn…

You can just go to any IKEA and buy a replacement part? Every single part they've ever sold is available at the replacement desk in their stores (at least here in Germany). Even individual screws, legs, etc. When I broke a door and one of the hinges of a kitchen cabinet, I just went to IKEA and bought a replacement door (of the exact same type) and replacement hinge) and replaced them.

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

#133

Post by paganel »

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…

Not throwing furniture away every few years will seriously help solve the problem. Of course, that would mean fewer sales for companies like IKEA.

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

#134

Post by pjc50 »

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…

Indeed - which is the argument for point-of-extraction carbon pricing. Then you don't have to calculate anything, it gets sorted out along the supply chain by individual decisions as to whether the CO2 cost is worth it compared to the available alternatives at that step.

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

#135

Post by refurb »

loceng wrote: post #69
renewiltord wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem that bad to make forests, then cut them down, mix them together with stuff that makes them non-compostable and then just jamming it in the ground. Some local pollution, but you ultimately are sequestering the carbon, so all is well.

Is there a silent /sarcasm tag at the end of this comment?

It's carbon capture isn't it? Use fast growing wood, make furniture by gluing flakes together. If it gets tossed, it just sits underground.

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

#136

Post by throwaway2245 »

It makes me feel sad that this basic and cheap greenwashing gets more attention than anything environmentally critical.

Here's IKEA's original Press Release which has been worked into this "news" article. The original PR actually has much more clarity: https://www.ikea.com/us/en/this-is-ikea/newsroom/ingka-inves...

IKEA makes it clear that the forest was formerly owned by a conservation group and was seemingly not in danger of being developed, contrary to the headline here.

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

#137

Post by Darmody »

dmurray wrote: post #74
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/…

I don't think he means IKEA owns 33% of the forest. 33% is the total percentage of forest and IKEA is the bigger single owner of forests. Two separate statements.

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

#138

Post by shafyy »

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.

The problem is that, like with clothes, people THINK they need more and newer things all the time because Marketing tells them that they do.

I read somewhere (can't find the link right now) that shit tons of clothes and other items are not laying around in warehouses not being sold (due to lockdown) and I don't see people walking around naked in the streets.

So, before buying something, ask yourself: 1) Do I really need it? 2) Can I buy it used?

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

#139

Post by codebolt »

kuschku wrote: post #132
tweetle_beetle wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The annoying thing about IKEA furniture, and that from competitors, is that all it takes is for a tiny piece of particle board to be damaged internally for the whole item to be useless. Generally, while they are in one piece and not moved, they are fine. But trasnporting or disassembling this stuff is a risk. The tiny wooden pegs, plastic bits and agressive screws going straight into soft board can rip out chunks, sn…

You can just go to any IKEA and buy a replacement part? Every single part they've ever sold is available at the replacement desk in their stores (at least here in Germany). Even individual screws, legs, etc. When I broke a door and one of the hinges of a kitchen cabinet, I just went to IKEA and bought a replacement door (of the exact same type) and replacement hinge) and replaced them.

You can also search for the serial number on eBay and typically find a compatible part.

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

#140

Post by refurb »

WalterBright wrote: post #76
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…

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.)

As someone who recently moved across the country, that's true with 90% of what I owned. $3000 to ship and I could replace damn near everything for less, with a few exceptions - clothing, electronics, artwork.
Post reply on HN