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

551–560 of 622 posts

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

#551

Post by fastball »

arcticbull wrote: post #506
fastball wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, as part of "Electrify everything", it would probably be good to replace a significant chunk of the banking system with a cryptocurrency layer (maybe bitcoin, maybe not). With green energy, digital gold is a lot more green than physical gold. Bitcoin is like electric cars – not super green right in this moment when the grid is still dirty, but all it takes to make it greener is to green up the grid. Meanwhil…

> And cryptos like Ethereum have the potential to 10x/100x/1000x that with things like PoS vs. PoW as well as the fact that Ethereum smart contracts can not only replace banking but probably other industries as well, such as title companies and various other middlemen. It's been 13 years now and nobody's done it, because that's a terrible idea. The reason lawyers exist is that all contracts have ambiguity and require…

For starters, I think you're underestimating how much of what we do in the modern world is entirely digital and therefore can be entirely captured in a blockchain. There are decentralized trustless platforms running on Ethereum right now. You can transact currency on a plethora of decentralized exchanges, without all the layers that doing so with an exchange of USD -> RMB requires today. There are pilot programs built around blockchain that allow people to sell excess energy production (e.g. with home solar) back to other people on the "grid" in an entirely decentralized way.

And with tokens that are tied to real-life things, the benefit is that once you've used real-world trust systems (e.g. real-life contracts / lawyers / courts / etc) to tie something to the blockchain, you can (going forward) hand everything over to the trustless and secure system. i.e. You tie your property to the blockchain once, and from then on you don't need to involve all those inefficient systems, you just transact the tied token directly on the blockchain.

Just because it hasn't been done successfully yet doesn't mean it's not viable. How long did the internet exist before [thing that is taken for granted on the internet now] was successful?

Finally, Ethereum launched in 2015, not sure where you're getting 13 years from.

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

#552

Post by Geminidog »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #415
ashtonkem wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IKEA also has a will to abuse them to a degree that their peers don’t, and we should judge them as less ethical for it.

Which degree should we start judging at? When people deduct taxes for donations to universities to increase the odds of their child being accepted? When people deduct taxes for charity to their church/temple/organization/other tribe in order to direct resources in a way that might benefit them more directly versus the nation as a whole? It's either legal or it's not. If you want the "abuse" to stop, then elect the le…

>Which degree should we start judging at?

Morality doesn't need to be codified into exact terms in order to be relevant. At what point does killing become a crime? When you kill an ant for no reason? When you kill an animal for food? Or when you kill another human for survival? Intuitively I know the differences. But articulating my intuition into words can lead to loop holes so I'd rather not.

The moral module in your mind is not perfect but when looking at Ikea, it's telling me Ikea is an getting an unfair advantage with this loop hole and it's ethically wrong. That's enough for most people.

>It's either legal or it's not. If you want the "abuse" to stop, then elect the legislators that will make the loopholes illegal.

You don't need a law to tell the difference from right and wrong and nothing is as simple as electing the right person to make things right again. Who do I elect to save dying infrastructure in the US? Who do I elect to stop corporations from paying less taxes than me? It's not so clear cut, what I'm voting for or how to fix this.

I don't know where you're reasoning comes from, but one thing is for sure. I'd share your exact attitude if I'm a beneficiary of said loop holes in laws. My mind would twist the obvious logic to justify my own crimes if I myself were the ass hole that was committing them.

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

#553

Post by ashtonkem »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #464
ashtonkem wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their habit of using illegally harvested wood is a good reason to hate them.

Is that true? They make a big show of their environmentalism. In general, I'm very disappointed at how difficult it is to make informed consumer choices with respect to the environment. Maybe the idea is that consumer choices are small potatoes and we should all just pour our energy into campaigning for climate policy?

They've been accused of illegal logging in Romania[0], but they're very secretive about where they get their lumber from.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA#Possible_illegal_timber_i...

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

#554

Post by tahoeskibum »

Here's the link to Economist article from 2005, which explains how IKEA uses non-profit status. I frequently buy from IKEA but used to think of it a well oiled corporation, and didn't know that it was "non-profit".

https://www.economist.com/business/2006/05/11/flat-pack-acco...

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

#555

Post by captainredbeard »

dubcanada wrote: post #246
dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yo…

> and hard pine/other wood for more expensive

Pine is a softwood.

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

#556

Post by alacombe »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #443
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly. If you want to fix furniture, you need space and tools, so you need bigger houses (or the ability to move the furniture to a community spot) and tools. Tools will generally be made of metal, and needs factories to make these tools. Some of the parts are available freely: I'm guessing not all are. Manufacturing will need to be different as well if your pieces aren't designed to be repaired in such a way: Who…

What 'Tools' are needed to repair a chair or a wardrobe? A screwdriver, a saw, a drill? They last decades, and can be used to repair tens of thousands of items. To suggest that their environmental impact is higher than that of equivalent favtory equipment needed to produce furniture is delusional.

> To suggest that their environmental impact is higher than that of equivalent favtory equipment needed to produce furniture is delusional

Western society has become full of contradiction...

Consumerism is environmentalism,

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

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

#557

Post by worldvoyageur »

It's none of my business if Ikea wants to buy productive forest land and take it out of production.

However, I don't understand how it is any kind of signal of virtue.

Would it be virtuous to buy productive farm land and take it out of circulation?

How is forest land any different?

In a previous life, it would be broadly correct to say that I worked in the forest industry. My body still hurts when I think about it.

I worked for wood lot owners, felling trees, trimming off the branches, sectioning the logs, splitting the wood and then stacking it to be sold by the cord. These woodlots had been in operation for over 150 years. Same land, different trees. They still operate now.

I also worked as a tree planter, hired by small contractors working for 'big forest'. Us tree planters went in after the heavy equipment had ripped out the trees, tearing the land to shreds in the process. It felt like what ground would have been like after a B-52 strike, an eerie hell scape, but with an explosion of small plants and flowers with new access to the sun, deer and other wildlife roaming free, wondering at the strange human interloper. Sometimes wolves and bears, at which point it felt rather lonely, me with a Swiss Army knife (mostly for the fork) and my nearest crew mate being well outside shouting distance.

The churned up land we were planting had been pulp forest itself for over a hundred years. As I planted, others were taking soil and water samples. To the forest company, the forest was a long term asset and that it thrived was in their interest.

I didn't think about it much then, but others long dead had planted that ground before me. Those foot long trees I planted have long been harvested and new trees planted in their place.

Trees are like wheat, or corn, or quinoa. Except instead of being a once a year crop, trees are once every twenty five years or so.

Otherwise, what's the difference?

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

#558

Post by InitialLastName »

SR2Z wrote: post #492
InitialLastName wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way they're laid out maximizes the amount of time it takes to get through them by the "natural" path, making customers repeatedly make the decision not to buy things, thereby wearing down their willpower until they get to the end and can load up their cart with trinkets they didn't need when they showed up.

If you go to a showroom and get offended when it does its job it sounds like you really shouldn't be going to a showroom at all.

Oh, I don't and I'm not offended. I'm just pointing out that there was a design constraint other than "This is for the consumer's benefit"

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

#559

Post by alacombe »

BurningFrog wrote: post #412
dfxm12 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they use the same amount of wood though? There's more to "consumption" than money!

Wood is a renewable resource. I don't see how using it is bad.

> Wood is a renewable resource.

By this logic, so is oil.

FWIW, hardwood takes DECADES to grow, and "softwood" is pretty much junk.

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

#560

Post by IgorPartola »

Sodman wrote: post #361
rychco wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, the first definition I found for the word evade is “escape or avoid, especially by cleverness or trickery.”

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…

That’s right. The US uses its tax system to incentivize behavior. Say the government wants its citizens to buy more electric cars than ICE cars. It can put a ban on selling ICE cars but because the US by and large detests regulation, that has a huge political cost. So instead the government gives you a tax credit for buying a Tesla.

Or the government wants to encourage home ownership, so it makes mortgage interest tax deductible.

Or it wants you to get married so it gives you a tax break for filing jointly.

Or it wants you to live in Alaska so it gives you a tax credit to move there.

Or it wants you to revive an economically insecure geographical area so it gives your business a tax break for operating there.

Or it wants you to hire ex convicts so it gives you a tax credit for each one you hire.

This is a mechanism that is used by the federal and state governments to drive behavior. Arguably churches being tax exempt then is the government encouraging its citizens to participate in church activities because we are only one nation “under god”.

Post reply on HN