3 ms·

Read the article again: > Ikea will soon be selling pre-used versions of some of its best sellers > Ikea said that anything that cannot be resold will be recy

Read the article again: > Ikea will soon be selling pre-used versions of some of its best sellers > Ikea said that anything that cannot be resold will be recycled. Recycling is a last resort here, the primary news here is that IKEA is going to be selling refurbished items (aka re-use) and incentivising people to partake by offering trade-in value when they bring their items back. This move is primarily meant to counter people throwing away furniture prematurely when moving. This way people can re-sell their items to IKEA, and IKEA will sell it in good state to other people that can re-use it. This seems like it would be better for the environment than everybody logging around heavy furniture cross-country (or cross-continent), because unnecessary transport costs are avoided, and is certainly much better than the status quo of people throwing away old IKEA furniture that is still perfectly usable. To me this seems like a good idea. Do you have any better ideas? Reduce would be theoretically preferable, but good luck convincing people not to use a bed, a desk or a dining room table.

stinos 6y ago
Ikea said that anything that cannot be resold will be recycled. Is that even technically possible? 'Most of it', perhaps, though for some of the materials they use I'd really like to see the technical side of how they o it, but 'anything' seems far fetched. This move is primarily meant to counter people throwing away furniture prematurely when moving Yes, I'm not denying that. This is what they are doing, but at the same time they are saying hopes that the initiative will help its customers take a stand against excessive consumption. My point being: where is the link between those 2? So just to be clear: I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not, probably leaning towards good, but with a bunch of considerations in mind: selling their things second hand or even giving away is what people also have been doing already. In case of selling they get back money, with IKEA they'll get back vouchers, limited to 50%. Imo it adds to the idea that recycling is good. It is, but only if there really is recycling (for some products it's a complete myth pushed by the industry) and even then, not having to recycle in the first place is better. From the article: should then return them - fully assembled - to the returns desk - this sounds like they're expecting people to transport complete things (or disassmble/reassemble on the spot). That's kind of a showstopper. This seems like it would be better for the environment than everybody logging around heavy furniture cross-country (or cross-continent), because unnecessary transport costs are avoided This is tricky. Current system: buy X, transport X home, transport X to landfill. Or with second hand: buy X, transport X home, transport X to new home. New system: buy X, transport X home, transport X back to IKEA, transport X to new home or landfill. So there are a lot of variables to consider here so I wouldn't be suprised if ot turns out to be sometimes better and sometimes worse, i.e. really hard to use it in an argument of it being better overall. good luck convincing people not to use a bed, a desk or a dining room table. To state the obvious: that is not at all what this is about and as far as I can tell I also never gave that impression in my comment. It's about teaching people about the value of durability, i.e. convincing people they do not have to buy a new bed or desk every x years. Now how do you achive that? I honestly don't know for sure. But seeing that previous generations had no (or much less) problems with that, it means it's something which is teacheable, so I'd start with that. As a push back agains consumerism, educate the young ones and explain them there are cases where it is possible to buy one thing for a lifetime (or so), that there is nothing wrong with buying second had goods, etc.
- mytherin 6y ago
  > So just to be clear: I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not, probably leaning towards good, but with a bunch of considerations in mind: selling their things second hand or even giving away is what people also have been doing already. In case of selling they get back money, with IKEA they'll get back vouchers, limited to 50%. I think you underestimate two things here: (1) people would much rather go to IKEA to return an item than to sell on craigslist, and (2) people would trust IKEA much more when buying a refurbished item, rather than buying used from craigslist. The fact that it is IKEA itself that is doing this and making it easier for consumers can drastically increase both the pool of items that are being re-used, and the amount of people that will consider buying used items. > To state the obvious: that is not at all what this is about and as far as I can tell I also never gave that impression in my comment. It's about teaching people about the value of durability, i.e. convincing people they do not have to buy a new bed or desk every x years. Now how do you achive that? I honestly don't know for sure. But seeing that previous generations had no (or much less) problems with that, it means it's something which is teacheable, so I'd start with that. As a push back agains consumerism, educate the young ones and explain them there are cases where it is possible to buy one thing for a lifetime (or so), that there is nothing wrong with buying second had goods, etc. The previous generations had a very different life. Fewer people were moving across the country, and fewer people were moving to different continents. People would stay in one place and work for the same company for decades. This is simply not the reality of today. Many people do not stay in the same place for more than a few years, and the distances they are moving are larger than ever before. Furniture has adapted to this new reality, and unless that reality changes again, it will not go back to the way it used to be. When you move across country it is impractical to take furniture along with you. Worse, it is straight up bad for the environment. Renting a truck and driving 3000 miles to lug around a table, a bed and a desk is a horrible idea from an environmentalist point of view. It is much better to avoid that transportation cost and give away your furniture locally for re-use, and get somebody else's furniture at your destination. This is exactly what IKEA is trying to accomplish here.
waynesonfire 6y ago
> Recycling is a last resort here Not surprised. Ikea furniture is made out of particle board--saw dust with resins. Last I researched it can't be recycled.

stinos 6y ago

Ikea said that anything that cannot be resold will be recycled. Is that even technically possible? 'Most of it', perhaps, though for some of the materials they use I'd really like to see the technical side of how they o it, but 'anything' seems far fetched. This move is primarily meant to counter people throwing away furniture prematurely when moving Yes, I'm not denying that. This is what they are doing, but at the same time they are saying hopes that the initiative will help its customers take a stand against excessive consumption. My point being: where is the link between those 2? So just to be clear: I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not, probably leaning towards good, but with a bunch of considerations in mind: selling their things second hand or even giving away is what people also have been doing already. In case of selling they get back money, with IKEA they'll get back vouchers, limited to 50%. Imo it adds to the idea that recycling is good. It is, but only if there really is recycling (for some products it's a complete myth pushed by the industry) and even then, not having to recycle in the first place is better. From the article: should then return them - fully assembled - to the returns desk - this sounds like they're expecting people to transport complete things (or disassmble/reassemble on the spot). That's kind of a showstopper. This seems like it would be better for the environment than everybody logging around heavy furniture cross-country (or cross-continent), because unnecessary transport costs are avoided This is tricky. Current system: buy X, transport X home, transport X to landfill. Or with second hand: buy X, transport X home, transport X to new home. New system: buy X, transport X home, transport X back to IKEA, transport X to new home or landfill. So there are a lot of variables to consider here so I wouldn't be suprised if ot turns out to be sometimes better and sometimes worse, i.e. really hard to use it in an argument of it being better overall. good luck convincing people not to use a bed, a desk or a dining room table. To state the obvious: that is not at all what this is about and as far as I can tell I also never gave that impression in my comment. It's about teaching people about the value of durability, i.e. convincing people they do not have to buy a new bed or desk every x years. Now how do you achive that? I honestly don't know for sure. But seeing that previous generations had no (or much less) problems with that, it means it's something which is teacheable, so I'd start with that. As a push back agains consumerism, educate the young ones and explain them there are cases where it is possible to buy one thing for a lifetime (or so), that there is nothing wrong with buying second had goods, etc.

mytherin 6y ago
> So just to be clear: I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not, probably leaning towards good, but with a bunch of considerations in mind: selling their things second hand or even giving away is what people also have been doing already. In case of selling they get back money, with IKEA they'll get back vouchers, limited to 50%. I think you underestimate two things here: (1) people would much rather go to IKEA to return an item than to sell on craigslist, and (2) people would trust IKEA much more when buying a refurbished item, rather than buying used from craigslist. The fact that it is IKEA itself that is doing this and making it easier for consumers can drastically increase both the pool of items that are being re-used, and the amount of people that will consider buying used items. > To state the obvious: that is not at all what this is about and as far as I can tell I also never gave that impression in my comment. It's about teaching people about the value of durability, i.e. convincing people they do not have to buy a new bed or desk every x years. Now how do you achive that? I honestly don't know for sure. But seeing that previous generations had no (or much less) problems with that, it means it's something which is teacheable, so I'd start with that. As a push back agains consumerism, educate the young ones and explain them there are cases where it is possible to buy one thing for a lifetime (or so), that there is nothing wrong with buying second had goods, etc. The previous generations had a very different life. Fewer people were moving across the country, and fewer people were moving to different continents. People would stay in one place and work for the same company for decades. This is simply not the reality of today. Many people do not stay in the same place for more than a few years, and the distances they are moving are larger than ever before. Furniture has adapted to this new reality, and unless that reality changes again, it will not go back to the way it used to be. When you move across country it is impractical to take furniture along with you. Worse, it is straight up bad for the environment. Renting a truck and driving 3000 miles to lug around a table, a bed and a desk is a horrible idea from an environmentalist point of view. It is much better to avoid that transportation cost and give away your furniture locally for re-use, and get somebody else's furniture at your destination. This is exactly what IKEA is trying to accomplish here.

waynesonfire 6y ago

> Recycling is a last resort here Not surprised. Ikea furniture is made out of particle board--saw dust with resins. Last I researched it can't be recycled.