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

181–190 of 622 posts

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

#181

Post by TeMPOraL »

audunw wrote: post #90
namdnay wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the argument would go that we would be better off building small quantities of long-lasting re-usable furniture, rather than building and throwing away lots of new cheaper furniture The low prices at Ikea and others definitely encourage over-consumption - buying a new table instead of restoring an old one for example Personally I don't necessarily subscribe to this argument, I think that we can focus on bigge…

> I guess the argument would go that we would be better off building small quantities of long-lasting re-usable furniture, rather than building and throwing away lots of new cheaper furniture No way. Not as long as population growth is a thing. A lot of people shopping at IKEA are buying furniture for the first time. Imagine if we switched to all hardwood furniture. People would still need to buy as much furniture fo…

> People would still need to buy as much furniture for the next 20-40 years or so at least, but now those furniture will have a huge environmental impact.

I question that. Population growth is not that fast, and I can easily see how the amount of replaced furniture is bigger than the amount of furniture bought for the first time.

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

#182

Post by conjectures »

kuschku wrote: post #132
tweetle_beetle wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

In the UK you can get spare bits too.

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

#183

Post by Jochim »

KorematsuFred wrote: post #111
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. Why they have to explain themselves for doing something useful? What should they use to produce furniture? Would plastic be any better? Iron? Stone? Unfortunately we live in a world where virtue signaling is more important than actual virtues and winning arguments is more important than actual winning. Yes this is a PR thing and will help to create a positive…

There appears to be two camps of people in this debate. Those who expect corporations to behave according to the ethics and morals of society and those who believe corporations should attempt to extract as much profit as possible.

To those in the second camp I'd ask, why shouldn't society seek to place limits on corporate behaviour when it believes that behaviour is harmful to the long term goals of society? Why should the profit motive be put before social need?

Without social and governmental intervention we'd still have cigarette companies paying doctors to promote their products as safe and healthy. We'd still be experiencing crime waves brought on by leaded gasoline and fireproofing would still be made from asbestos. Should the government and activists have allowed these things to continue? If not, what differentiates them from expecting Ikea to responsibly manage it's consumption of lumber?

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

#184

Post by bombcar »

bayindirh wrote: post #98
bombcar wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If not abused on purpose" is the problem - things DO get abused and once engineered wood products start to degrade there's no stopping it. And if water gets in and doesn't get removed immediately you're in for a world of excitement. Given that kitchens are remodeled every 7-10 years "on average" paying for solid wood/plywood might not be worth it. But there's a reason commercial kitchens are stainless steel.

Galant is not "engineered" per se. It's so dense that you can drive screws to anywhere on it. It behaves like drywall. > And if water gets in and doesn't get removed immediately you're in for a world of excitement. On higher end IKEA furniture there's no hex structure inside. It's filled. Solid. There's no inside . My kitchen is 8 years old and it has a solid wood counter. I re-oil it occasionally but, there's no deg…

The "inside" refers to the material between the veneer layers - as you find with particle board or MDF: https://gharpedia.com/blog/particle-board-vs-mdf/

It sounds like Galant may be MDF which is more durable but still experiences expansion when wet.

The countertop is solid wood to help prevent that type of damage - and as long as you maintain the plumbing it should last quite awhile.

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

#185

Post by amelius »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #169
amelius wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You have entire gold mining illegal operations with heavy machinery deep in the forest without any law enforcement to halt them. Murder of indigenous locals in clashes with illegal miners is also not uncommon. Similarly to coca farming in Colombia they simply relocate to another unknown location periodically. Even assuming good faith from Brazilian law enforcement/military the remoteness and shear size of the rain fo…

It seems there is some hope:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145988/tracking-ama...

> A (...) satellite-based system, DETER, went into operation in 2004 (...)

> “DETER completely changed the way rangers went about enforcement work,” said Rajão. Rather than doing random patrols and checking for permits, rangers would send squads of enforcement officers — with satellite images in hand — to investigate areas of recent, suspicious activity. That made it much easier to remove or apprehend equipment. The word spread among deforesters. The existence of DETER meant that environmental authorities would likely notice if large tracts of land were cleared, and fines and agents would follow soon enough.

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

#186

Post by flarg »

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.

Seasoned IKEA customer here. They have two types of products, one type is durable and the other is not and it's pretty easy to tell the difference from the price. Desks and bookcases are good examples of the former.

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

#187

Post by jwr »

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…

Well, in terms of carbon in the atmosphere, making furniture from wood actually makes a lot of sense, assuming you use sustainable forestry (replant the same amount or more).

That carbon in your furniture isn't going into the air anytime soon, hopefully never.

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

#188

Post by [deleted] »

paganel wrote: post #133
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…

Not throwing furniture away every few years will seriously help solve the problem. Of course, that would mean fewer sales for companies like IKEA.

[deleted]

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

#189

Post by enriquto »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #173
enriquto wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The problem is that it's useless for sequestering carbon that's already in air, that we sourced from deep underground.

Yes, the obvious step would be to stop burning fossil carbon, it seems like a much more pressing issue than sequestering the one that is already in the atmosphere.

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

#190

Post by FooBarWidget »

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.

Disposable? I've never had to throw away any IKEA furniture. These things can easily last 15 years.
Post reply on HN