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

431–440 of 622 posts

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

#431

Post by minikites »

shafyy wrote: post #138
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. S…

>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.

This is a problem with capitalism, not IKEA or clothing.

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

#432

Post by agloeregrets »

smileybarry wrote: post #232
gregoriol wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IKEA uses wood? really? I thought they used shitty agglomerates and other mixes in their furniture, maybe all the wood is for something else?

They have some full wood products, some of their pricier desks, dining tables and kitchen countertops are full wood. Maybe all those thin wood covers on everything else add up, too.

Yup, many full wood items. One of their cheapest dressers is pure pine. The Poang is just laminated wood.

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

#433

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #406
Sodman wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, they are very specific, distinct things. Tax Evasion[0] is not paying taxes you legally owe. Tax Avoidance[1] is finding ways to owe less tax. Evasion is considered illegal, but Avoidance can practically be considered encouraged, as it's perfectly legal and rewards practitioners with lower tax bills. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxevasion.asp [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_avoida…

Most people reading this are probably aware of the distinction in technical, legal terms. But it doesn't matter, because we're not prosecutors or the IRS. But I still call it tax evasion colloquially, because I'm just an average Joe who can't prosecute anyone so my legal opinion doesn't matter. My judgement is not whether it's illegal, but whether it's immoral and scummy. My neighbor, a self-employed painter, claimin…

The difference between avoidance and evasion is very important. One of them is legal and economically encouraged, the other one is an accusation of a crime.

Also, most people learn this in high school. Calling it evasion when it is avoidance only confuses people as to what you mean, and makes people think you don't know what the terms mean.

> My neighbor, a self-employed painter, claiming his work truck (that he also uses to pull the family camper) as a depreciating business asset is tax avoidance, and I can get behind that. Ikea registering as a nonprofit with 99% overhead is tax evasion, and it's scummy.

But objectively speaking, you are aware it's the exact opposite? It's like trying to defend a function in C that causes UB by claiming it works on your machine. Yes, ok, but it is still UB. Your opinion does not change that, or what other people assume you mean when you say things.

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

#434

Post by fastball »

usrusr wrote: post #155
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everytime I hear the word 'carbon capture' I just think of trees. This is literally what trees do, they capture carbon.

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…

Fossil fuels are not the only thing we do that cannot be carbon neutral though, such as construction with cement.

Additionally, carbon capture does not necessarily mean we are burning "fossil" fuels. Carbon capture could be using the Sabatier process to create methane from the CO2 in the air, which you then use to power rocketships/jets/etc, which we are still not very close to electrifying.

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

#435

Post by [deleted] »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #406
Sodman wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, they are very specific, distinct things. Tax Evasion[0] is not paying taxes you legally owe. Tax Avoidance[1] is finding ways to owe less tax. Evasion is considered illegal, but Avoidance can practically be considered encouraged, as it's perfectly legal and rewards practitioners with lower tax bills. [0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/taxevasion.asp [1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_avoida…

Most people reading this are probably aware of the distinction in technical, legal terms. But it doesn't matter, because we're not prosecutors or the IRS. But I still call it tax evasion colloquially, because I'm just an average Joe who can't prosecute anyone so my legal opinion doesn't matter. My judgement is not whether it's illegal, but whether it's immoral and scummy. My neighbor, a self-employed painter, claimin…

[deleted]

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

#436

Post by fastball »

enriquto wrote: post #158
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then release a large majority of it when they die and are eaten by fungus and bacteria. https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/recycling-dea...

Thus, growing a tree and burning the wood (or disposing of it) is 100% carbon neutral. What's the problem, then?

People probably aren't going to be flying around in wood-powered passenger jets any time soon.

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

#437

Post by abvdasker »

crisdux wrote: post #427
kstenerud wrote: post #385

News reel: - Big company/person X is does beneficial thing Y HN: - It's just a PR stunt! - It's a ploy to leverage something else and make more profit! - It's so tiny that it doesn't even make a difference! If they REALLY cared they'd do A, B, C... - They're actually doing Y to accumulate Z for some nefarious purpose! - I once did some interaction with X or their products and it went poorly! - X has skeletons I, J, a…

I don't understand this critique. Corporate PR is largely propaganda. Our corporatist media isn't willing or able pursue actual journalism to find out the truth, so now we have lot's of people searching for answers on a forum that allows for free speech. If you don't like it, you should probably just stick to cable news.

I think you're largely correct, but sometimes corporations can end up doing the "right thing" in the pursuit of good press or to serve brand marketing. I would say that IKEA doing environmental conservation is a good thing in this case, despite the company's motives for doing so being transparently self-serving. To me IKEA's reason for doing this is less important than the positive impact it will have.

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

#438

Post by ajford »

_ZeD_ wrote: post #179
znpy wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, I had some second-hand (a desk, used for four eyars) and third-hand (an office chair, used for the last ~9 years) and yes it's pretty durable. The chair show it's ages on the fake-leather upper side (where your back lays) but then again... It's been used at elast nine years (but maybe it's been ten or eleven).

erhm... sorry... but IMHO nine years are "nothing". A good chair should last at least 50 years.

Um... yeah, I disagree. No cushioning is going to survive for 50 years, and something like an office chair should be rotated far sooner than that (or maintained with replacement cushioning/support) to keep the ergonomics intact. Especially for an office chair (assuming this is something like an 8-hr chair and not a short duration task chair).

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

#439

Post by kebman »

tshaddox wrote: post #430
nom wrote: post #256

I never understood why people hate IKEA. Yes it's cheap. Yes it doesn't last a lifetime. Yes it needs a lot of wood. Yes it's highly optimized. But guess what, IKEA is a business responding to the needs of people. The negatives that are mentioned frequently are merely a symptom of our ever faster developing society. The people who complain are the same ones that just buy cheap crap from china without even thinking ab…

Also, the furniture market is just insane. If you want a chest of drawers, you either pay $100 for a cheap flat pack self-assembled one from IKEA and take it home today, or similar prices for a similar one online from Wayfair.com (a bit more of a gamble), or you pay over $1000 for something that won’t show up for 6 months. It’s bizarre that you can buy a brand new car with cash and take it home today, but the supply…

I'd love some insight in how this industry works. I know there's some shops that literally do woodworking and upholstry for that bespoke furniture, but as far as I know, most of it is designed for industry production and mass produced. And indeed, if it's one thing IKEA is doing, it's exactly design for mass production at scale, but the quality is not super-high, perhaps even intentionally.

I think, when it comes down to it, lots of people can afford those $1000—or more—furnitures. When people here in the Nordics are done with their furniture, it's often just given away for free on our Craigslist equivalents. And not just the cheap stuff! Often you find really high quality stuff being given away for free. In fact, I found my favourite antique chair in a dumpster! All it needed was a bit of dusting off, and I've had it for over 20 years now. It's simply a very sturdy and high quality armchair. And their previous owners opted to throw it away rather than to even list it.

Personally I really like to list stuff, though, because it's an easy way to get others to do the heavy lifting for you. So probably that explains at least some of it. ;)

Post reply on HN