Gotta say that isn’t that much land, I’ve been looking at land with a couple friends. I can get 1,000 acres of land with lumber for probably $800-$2000 per acre. Really depends where, just saying 11,000 acres really isn’t much.
IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
241–250 of 622 posts
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#242Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but to get a long term net effect we'd have to bury them about as deep as the fossils we are excavating. I dare claim that this won't happen (it would be far cheaper/more efficient to leave those fossils and synthesize something from those trees up here) Sometimes I wonder, as a mind experiment, how close we could get to practical carbon burial with a process based on sinking polymer blocks in the ocean: the spe…
> to get a long term net effect we'd have to bury them about as deep as the fossils we are excavating. Why? What is wrong with capturing carbon the way trees naturally do? (Honest question)
Trees are part of a closed cycle: eventually they burn or are decomposed biologically (fungi and animals). As far as I know, all the high quality fossil reservoirs we excavate have been accumulated in an exceptional era when the biological defense mechanisms of trees happened to have so much of an upper hand over all potential decompositors that their corpses basically stayed around forever. Imagine a C heap when for a while free() is a noop... (it has been fixed for quite a while now).
The closest thing we have today to those "eternal tree corpses" are peat bogs were decomposition is kind of broken even today (and guess who discovered that dried up peat can burn, even if it's a very dirty fire? Humans. We just love oxydating carbons).
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sure. But it really means IKEA is the biggest single owner of forests, apart from the owner who owns 40 times as much as IKEA does.
Sure, but including state ownership skews the metrics. Is there any country where the government/state isn't the biggest owner of forests? Applying the same idea to the US puts the US government at the top with 31.1% of forests[1] even though 35.5% is collectively owned by families.
[1] https://www.nwtf.org/conservation/article/who-owns-forests-w...
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#245Earlier 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…
In broad strokes, Ikea furniture holds up well as long as the humidity and UV is low'ish. Don't leave it out in the open weather, let it get water-laden with humidity, or sit directly exposed to the sun anywhere, and the glues holding it together will generally last their lifecycle (about a decade or two), possibly longer if in an especially well-cared for environment.
With some practice, West System epoxy, filler and fiber glass can easily repair chips and chunks. It helps that I'm not fastidious about aesthetics, so lacking the laminate on top after a repair suits me. The little bits are more challenging to source if Ikea has stopped manufacturing or supplying them. I'm hoping 3D metrology and printing can help with that, so waste from people tossing out old furniture for want of a small part nearly goes away.
YMMV.
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 just go to any IKEA and buy a replacement part? Assuming there is a store nearby and even that the company is still in business. It's vendor lock-in. Meanwhile, my solid wood sideboard could be repaired by any competent cabinet maker, without needing specialist hinges or plastic brackets. Not that it is liable to fall apart as easily as particleboard & veneer.
Sorry, what?
IKEA can be repaired by any competent cabinet maker. IKEA doesn't use anything fancy and weird, all their stuff is standard or a slightly variation of standard and could easily be replaced by a standard one. In fact most of the IKEA stuff is so popular it has become standard.
IKEA sells both particleboard & veneer for their cheap/budget friendly stuff and hard pine/other wood for more expensive stuff.
You can't have cheap and solid wood, it's just too expensive.
Go down to the local wood shop and buy all the wood you need to make a sideboard and tell me how much it will cost. Certainly will be leagues higher then buying a particleboard & veneer version of the same thing.
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost everything I have in my house is Ikea, from the desk I'm typing this on (10 years old) and the cupboard next to it (12 years), to my 4 year old bed (had to buy a new bed frame when we moved in to this house because the divan couldn't fit up the stairs) Aside from one wardrobe which I had to get rid of (it was 237cm -- too tall for this house, so I gave it to my parents), the only furniture I can think of that…
Here in Europe it has a pretty bad name too. But I love it. Their furniture is very versatile, functional and easy. Also, even though furniture snobs hate it, I love pointing out their KALLAX or BILLY units behind them in online meetings :D :D Then it's "oh yeah but this is my home office, it's not so important". In my place literally all my furniture is from Ikea and I love it. I don't like spending much on it, and…
furniture snobs are just a whole other level of snobbery. I once wandered into a designer furniture store and came out feeling like I had been programmed by a cult. Also felt poor after looking at the price tags. "that nightstand costs as much as a car? I'll take 3 !"
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure that firing missiles into forests is the most intelligent use of resources...
Why not? You'd likely not need IraqWarII levels of commitment - just a few enthusiastically-delivered missives at 1100kph to get the message across. A few loitering drones and a few dozen more missiles might actually be a highly efficient use of resources. I'm not sure where 'intelligence' comes into play here, beyond condescension of an idea you evidently disagree with.
Well, causing a forest fire with a missile is one thing we should avoid.
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds exactly like the kind of problem market economies handles very well. Main problem is figuring out how to incorporate emissions into price signals.
Pricing negative externialities is EXACTLY the kind of thing market economies are terrible at.
Which was kind of my point. How can we internalize the externalities?
Re: IKEA buys 11,000 acres of U.S. forest to keep it from being developed
#250How much would buying all the Brazilian rain forest cost the world, or even renting it from Brazil? We would need it to be slightly more than cattle farming to work... but I’d happily pay towards this.
The most cost effective way is probably dropping a few hundred million anti personnel mines in the forest. They're very cheap to produce, very expensive to remove, and reliably keep people out of the area.
There are also numerous indigenous human tribes and untold number of mammals which would likely set these off. And what if you ever want to use the area? We are still finding mines from WWII all over the world. If you absolutely have to take the macho-military-method, I'd personally recommend drones...