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

Post by ramraj07 » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 11:57 AM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #61

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.

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.

Post by ramraj07 » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 11:58 AM UTC

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.

Post by leoedin » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 12:00 PM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #61

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.

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.

Post by TeMPOraL » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 12:03 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #135

loceng wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by contravariant » Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 12:04 PM UTC

jononor wrote: post #171

contravariant wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem there is that most ways to add carbon pricing are against the self interest of whomever enacts it. Point-of-extraction is especially bad because it places all of the initial burden on the few places that actually extract carbon, who are probably not going to like that idea.

On the other hand, those extractors are operating on licenses issued by governments. So in principle, one could add that do their license, and they would just have to deal with it. A challenge is that the market is global, while licenses are given out by nations. So requires alignment of many nations for it not to be a competitive burden on a few producers.