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

121–130 of 622 posts

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

#121

Post by namibj »

Heliosmaster wrote: post #43
mschuster91 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale. A forest that is left untouched acts as a CO2 sink by photosynthesis and "capturing" the CO2 as bio-mass. A re-forestation of land previously used for agriculture acts as a bigger CO2 sink because the potential for biomass capture is greater there.

What's best is doing the oil extraction in opposite. Grow plants and capture CO2, bury them in a way that prevents decomposition (is that possible?).

Yes, you can turn it into charcoal and bury that. Just make sure it doesn't catch fire.

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

#122

Post by KorematsuFred »

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…

Great example. Reminds me of Milton Friedman's "Nobody knows how to make a pencil" essay.

A lot of human progress is result of human actions but not planning. Centralized planning around "climate change" would 100% be a recipe for disaster and a monumental failure about which future generations will write for 100s of years just the way we talk about slavery today.

Your use of carbon makes my existence on the planet a bit risky and hence you should pay me some compensation. But how much ? That is an impossible task for anyone and not just for the centralized government systems but even for highly efficient private players looking at very small problems. This is something that even outright climate change deniers like me admit.

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

#123

Post by macspoofing »

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.

Exactly, IKEA *processes* one percent of commercial wood supply to build furniture for people. People who want furniture from IKEA use one percent of commercial wood supply. People want furniture made out of wood.

Same logic applies to oil companies who extract oil and WE use it to drive cars, take buses, use plastics, build roads etc.

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

#124

Post by kludgekraft »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #54
Snoddas wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have about usd 100 rotating in different micro loans through https://www.kiva.org/ In 11 years only one loan has defaulted.

How many loans is that? I take it when one comes back you just make another loan?

Yes, I do the same, only on https://www.zidisha.org/

100 dollars have been used for 500+ loans, the last 8 years or so. While you can pick the recipients yourselves, I've opted for automatic re-lending on the platform.

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

#126

Post by amelius »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #53
andy_ppp wrote: post #5

How 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.

Buying rain forest would mean nothing for illegal rare wood markets, or illegal gold mining, or illegal forest fires to stretch cattle grazing area. Most people grossly underestimate how wild and pretty much lawless inland rain-forest regions are in the Brazilian state of Amazonas . There are small pockets of settlements everywhere but except for Manaus there is very sparse infrastructure, Police will take days to ge…

> by the time you try to enforce this, the tree would have been fellen, cut, and shipped on a boat to the highest bidder.

That could be true, but only holds for one tree (or a small number of trees). The problem starts when people build a business around trees. By the time their businesses are fully operational you can enforce laws. And this makes it unattractive to even start in this line of business.

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

#127

Post by AndyMcConachie »

fastball wrote: post #87
helmholtz wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hence why the real solution has always been: 1. Electrify everything possible 2. Shift all electricity production to renewables, massively increase power output with nuclear nuclear nuclear. 3. Carbon capture.

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

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

#128

Post by tweetle_beetle »

FriedrichN wrote: post #109
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.

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, snap off, etc. Good luck getting a replacement door, etc.

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

#129

Post by Darmody »

They have been profiting from illegal logging for years if not decades.

https://www.channel4.com/news/investigation-thousands-of-tre...

And they also bought entire forests through corrupt companies. http://skyddaskogen.se/en/news/4852-ikea-s-forest-in-romania...

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

#130

Post by loceng »

FriedrichN wrote: post #109
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.

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.

Likewise I've had the opposite experience, and many variables to account for as to which is the norm; the type of furniture, the type of owner and environment it was used in and use profile, etc.
Post reply on HN