Somewhat related. IKEA is the largest owner of forests in Lithuania (around 33% of the total land area is forest):<p><a href="https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1104260/ikea-the-biggest-forest-owner-in-lithuania" rel="nofollow">https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1104260/ikea-the-bi...</a><p>At the time of this article (2019), they owned 66,000 acres of forest in the country.
It's none of my business if Ikea wants to buy productive forest land and take it out of production.<p>However, I don't understand how it is any kind of signal of virtue.<p>Would it be virtuous to buy productive farm land and take it out of circulation?<p>How is forest land any different?<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Otherwise, what's the difference?
Not implying that this is corporate propaganda to cater to the US public, but something similar happened to my country where saving the planet is not on the agenda of its citizens since there are other problems that need to be solved first. [1]<p>"IKEA’s goal is to purchase wood which is 100 per cent FSC-certified from these countries. At the same time there are many indications that forests with high conservation values are being logged by FSC-certified companies. FSC-certification is far from a guarantee for socially- and environmentally friendly forestry and FSC has received serious criticism from many environmental organizations, both in Sweden and internationally. Several environmental organizations have left FSC in protest. " [2]<p>So practically, you have a situation where IKEA acts on some shady rules established by this FCS that are unreliable. Moreover, countries with corrupt officials will eventually end up in prison but too late, before the harm is done. Generally, if as a Romanian I go outside to protest against IKEA and corrupt politicians exploiting the Carpathians, I'm told that I don't respect private property and that IKEA acts according to the laws of that country (created by corrupt policians with shady lobbies), in the end IKEA becomes the victim.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ikea-buys-83000-acre-forest-in-romania-to-make-furniture-7g6bgk9fphj" rel="nofollow">https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ikea-buys-83000-acre-fore...</a>
[2] <a href="http://skyddaskogen.se/en/news/4852-ikea-s-forest-in-romania-could-be-stolen" rel="nofollow">http://skyddaskogen.se/en/news/4852-ikea-s-forest-in-romania...</a>
I have a problem with IKEA. Aren't those peaces of furniture made of composite materials and those not so sturdy shelves a sustainability problem when compared to traditional furniture making which is mostly wood glue a protective coat which lasts for hundreds of years can be infinitely repaired in a workshop with some basic tools. And then it it all ends it can became firewood, which ikea furniture can't.<p>Shouldn't they start fixing the world there?
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.
Not disparaging IKEA at all--moves like this should be lauded--but this is a working forest, harvested for lumber. I can't speak to how sustainably it's harvested or anything, and while this is commendable, there is profit motive here, as IKEA is heavily dependent on wood for its products.<p>I think in general, supporting things like working forests from a government level (tax benefits) is probably something that isn't done enough, given forests are one of the best carbon sinks available to us.
<i>the forest was bought by IKEA as part of a strategy to reduce more carbon than it creates through its value chain</i><p>They might want to write that into their books, but note that by buying an existing forest, no additional CO2 reduction is achieved on a global scale.
News reel:<p>- Big company/person X is does beneficial thing Y<p>HN:<p>- It's just a PR stunt!<p>- It's a ploy to leverage something else and make more profit!<p>- It's so tiny that it doesn't even make a difference! If they REALLY cared they'd do A, B, C...<p>- They're actually doing Y to accumulate Z for some nefarious purpose!<p>- I once did some interaction with X or their products and it went poorly!<p>- X has skeletons I, J, and K in their closet! Watch out!<p>- Man, what's with all the X haters on HN today?<p>- Hoo boy, here come the X fanboys!
Meanwhile, in Romania, IKEA owned (through "Vastint") Băneasa Forest is being redeveloped into a 476k sqm (118 acres) residential area. My point here is, once they own the forest, they may choose to redevelop it any any time.
It makes me feel sad that this basic and cheap greenwashing gets more attention than anything environmentally critical.<p>Here's IKEA's original Press Release which has been worked into this "news" article. The original PR actually has much more clarity: <a href="https://www.ikea.com/us/en/this-is-ikea/newsroom/ingka-investments-acquires-forestland-in-united-states-from-the-conservation-fund-pub70656d40" rel="nofollow">https://www.ikea.com/us/en/this-is-ikea/newsroom/ingka-inves...</a><p>IKEA makes it clear that the forest was formerly owned by a conservation group and was seemingly not in danger of being developed, contrary to the headline here.
That's a pretty small forest by American standards but buying up forests or any kind of open land with the intent to spare them from being wrecked by another sprawling exurb is a great thing to do. Similar work has been done by various open space preservation funds and land trusts in California. As a climate strategy it's not really even about the forests, it's about the exurban Americans who are the greatest threat to the global climate.
This smells like some really bold and really ridiculous PR attempt.<p>"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]<p>I guess they need this PR purchase to appease some eko organization. And this is equally ridiculous.<p>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?<p>[1] <a href="https://inhabitat.com/one-percent-of-all-the-worlds-commercial-wood-is-used-to-make-ikea-products/" rel="nofollow">https://inhabitat.com/one-percent-of-all-the-worlds-commerci...</a>
It's because eastern european forests are cheap: <a href="https://www.romania-insider.com/schweighofer-sells-forests-romania" rel="nofollow">https://www.romania-insider.com/schweighofer-sells-forests-r...</a>
"IKEA is continuing to try and remain true to their principals—protecting the environment and striving to become a carbon neutral company, while still remaining one of the world’s most pleasurable shopping experiences."<p>Written by someone who has clearly never been to an IKEA.
I wish IKEA was public so I could buy some shares. Not because of this news necessarily, I do not see much value with this move but in general I can see that their business works amazingly here in Europe.
Everyone hating on Ikea quality in the comments - but they do make some well-designed item, even out of stainless steel - that will last.<p>But most people seem to be buying that £5 coffee table out of paper.
Manufacturing and building things out of sustainably managed forestry is one of the best ways to sequester carbon while making a profit and producing products people use and value.
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".<p><a href="https://www.economist.com/business/2006/05/11/flat-pack-accounting" rel="nofollow">https://www.economist.com/business/2006/05/11/flat-pack-acco...</a>
If you avoid paying taxes, it is easy to be charitable.<p>Wikipedia:
> The IKEA group has a complex corporate structure, which members of the European Parliament have alleged was designed to avoid over €1 billion in tax payments over the 2009–2014 period.[14][15] It is controlled by several foundations based in the Netherlands and Liechtenstein.[16][17]
Ikea has been buying large pieces of land in rainforest for years. Why? It can come in handy one day to be able to break the newspapers about how Ikea is saving the rainforest. Especially if shit hits the fan and the newspapers starts publishing bad news about Ikea.
~17 square miles, that's a sizable purchase. The _real_ benefit would occur if they manage it correctly (simulating natural forest fires with sustainable logging practices) and harvest the carbon that is captured so more carbon can be captured.
>IKEA is continuing to try and remain true to their principals—protecting the environment and striving to become a carbon neutral company, while still remaining one of the world’s most pleasurable shopping experiences.<p>They lead the article with THAT? #redflag
11,000 acres is about equal to a square property 4 miles on each side. It's a noble gesture, and the best outcome would be to motivate others to do the same.<p>Makes me wonder how much property could be bought for preservation with a Go Fund Me?
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.
Is this good or bad? Imagine an oil company buying up large oil fields, and they say, to stop oil production. They just bought resources they can do whatever they want with.
Just for scale, one of the 3 national forests in my region is about 900,000 acres.<p>It's not really restricted from development, but it's land that no one is in any hurry to develop.
They have been profiting from illegal logging for years if not decades.<p><a href="https://www.channel4.com/news/investigation-thousands-of-trees-illegally-felled-to-build-ikeas-flat-pack-empire" rel="nofollow">https://www.channel4.com/news/investigation-thousands-of-tre...</a><p>And they also bought entire forests through corrupt companies.
<a href="http://skyddaskogen.se/en/news/4852-ikea-s-forest-in-romania-could-be-stolen" rel="nofollow">http://skyddaskogen.se/en/news/4852-ikea-s-forest-in-romania...</a>
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.<p>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 about it.<p>IKEAs ability to produce products that people actually need, at such a scale, is amazing to me. It does what it promises. It's cheap. It fills most people's needs fully. Customer support is perfect. I know in 10 years replacements for their core products will still be available. Their way of innovating the products is genius.<p>I can't think of any other company that even comes close. Well, maybe LEGO.