6 ms·
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
by namdnay 6y ago
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 bigger sources of pollution/waste than transporting flatpack lumber, but I can see the argument
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoBuying new stuff in the west is now cheaper than repairing old items - this is a combination of outsourcing production, loosing skills, and deliberate efforts by compabies like Apple and Sonor to make their equipment unrepairable. https://youtu.be/Npd_xDuNi9k https://youtu.be/Npd_xDuNi9k
- xyzzy123 6y agoAlso cost of human labour vs automation. Manufacturing is done by machines but maintenance and repair are generally carried out by humans. Agree that hostile design or just lack of attention are also huge issues.
- the_other 6y agoIs it “cheaper” environmentally?
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoPossibly. 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 knows if this would be more environmentally friendly. Not to mention that it is a skill, so a repair might not even repair it but break it further - but now we've made the tools and things on top of the furniture (that didn't even use up scraps of wood, but caused them).
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoWhat '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.
- alacombe 6y ago> 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
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoThe issue isn't so much that ONE drill or saw is so much more - though, there are specialized tools for furniture that I do not have, but I also don't have a drill. The issue is that isn't just me needing these things if you want furniture repaired. If you want folks to fix things at home, you need everyone to have access to them if not own them. Everyone needs space to work on things if needed. If it isn't at the house, you need transportation. You aren't even reducing the factory equipment on-hand because it still would need to be produced. Dining chairs, for example, tend to get abused just by use and break in ways that cannot be fixed (oops, leg broke in half and I can't make this without woodworking tools and lots of training). You are simply reducing manufacturing of one type of furniture with another (that doesn't use the scraps in production) and very much increasing a lot of other manufacturing and increasing the space people need to have available to do these things. Edit: I'll mention that many folks are simply going to buy the cheapest tools to fix stuff: A decent drill isn't cheap, but a cheap drill might get you by if you only use it lightly and occasionally. If people are using them more, I suspect more will be thrown away. At least the furniture is using some renewable products: Drills aren't made of wood and pressure and glues.
- namdnay 6y agoAnd the fact that the environmental impact isn't factored into the cost
- oblio 6y ago> The low prices at Ikea and others definitely encourage over-consumption - buying a new table instead of restoring an old one for example This is never going to fly with regular folks, though. We could probably reduce pollution a ton if people started patching their clothes, but that's never going to happen either.
- forty 6y agoI think new clothes just needs to be expensive enough that patching is worth it
- agloeregrets 6y agoOkay so on things we are gatekeeping from the poor we have moved on to... checks notes Clothes?
- WalterBright 6y agoA friend of mine who moved across country a few times tells me it is cheaper to throw furniture away and rebuy it than ship it. (Throwing it away also includes giving it to the thrift store.)
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoBut he always buys new, rather than getting furniture from a thrift store?
- refurb 6y agoAs someone who recently moved across the country, that's true with 90% of what I owned. $3000 to ship and I could replace damn near everything for less, with a few exceptions - clothing, electronics, artwork.
- audunw 6y ago> 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 for the next 20-40 years or so at least, but now those furniture will have a huge environmental impact. Maybe you reduce the long-term impact, but probably not for 50 years at least. Making things out of cheap and low-impact particle boards, cardboard cores, etc, is probably the most realistic way of reducing the environmental impact. It maximises the use of the wood, you can make it out of fast growing wood, and you minimise use of materials. If you reuse more of the wood fibers through recycling, it'd be even better. I feel like this whole "we should use long-lasting re-usable furniture" thing is more about upper middle class people wanting to feel good about buying expensive furniture or spending the time to find and refurbish old furniture. There's nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't scale.
- maccard 6y ago> Making things out of cheap and low-impact particle boards, cardboard cores, etc, is probably the most realistic way of reducing the environmental impact. Not only that, it being made out of particleboard doesn't necessarily make it disposable. My parents have a set of Pax wardrobes that they've had for 20 years (give or take?), and they're perfectly functional, and with some small amount of TLC (a small tin of paint) could even be classed as pretty!
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- TeMPOraL 6y ago> 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.
- BurningFrog 6y agoBuying two $100 tables vs one $200 table is not overconsumption. Both consume $200.
- dfxm12 6y agoDo they use the same amount of wood though? There's more to "consumption" than money!
- BurningFrog 6y agoWood is a renewable resource. I don't see how using it is bad.