4 ms·

I don't think he means IKEA owns 33% of the forest. 33% is the total percentage of forest and IKEA is the bigger single owner of forests. Two separate statement

I don't think he means IKEA owns 33% of the forest. 33% is the total percentage of forest and IKEA is the bigger single owner of forests. Two separate statements.

dmurray 6y ago
Sure. But it really means IKEA is the biggest single owner of forests, apart from the owner who owns 40 times as much as IKEA does.
- Darmody 6y ago
  Who owns 40 times more?
  - dmurray 6y ago
    The Lithuanian state.
    - Darmody 6y ago
      But we're talking about private owners here. Also, there's no mention of how much the state owns or if the rest is owned by other private third parties.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- smileybarry 6y ago
  Sure, but including state ownership skews the metrics. Is there any country where the government/state isn't the biggest owner of forests? Applying the same idea to the US puts the US government at the top with 31.1% of forests[1] even though 35.5% is collectively owned by families. [1] https://www.nwtf.org/conservation/article/who-owns-forests-woodlands https://www.nwtf.org/conservation/article/who-owns-forests-w...
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I think it is Relevant precisely because skew the metrics When we talk about land-use.If it is left out people can make all kinds of misinformed Conclusions.