5 ms·

It's none of my business if Ikea wants to buy productive forest land and take it out of production. However, I don't understand how it is any kind of signal of

It's none of my business if Ikea wants to buy productive forest land and take it out of production. However, I don't understand how it is any kind of signal of virtue. Would it be virtuous to buy productive farm land and take it out of circulation? How is forest land any different? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Otherwise, what's the difference?

snoshy 6y ago
The difference in this particular case is that Ikea is not taking productive forest land and taking it out of production. It is taking naturally forested land that is at risk of deforestation that would ostensibly then be used for a monoculture wood farming industry. If this land was used for timber, it would reduce biodiversity in Georgia. That would unquestionably be a bad outcome for the environment. Deforestation and a reduction in biodiversity is a major problem the world faces, and it impacts much more than just the trees and plants - much of wildlife like animals, insects, and fish are losing their natural habitat and being driven extinct as a result of this practice. You can hype up timber forestry tactics all you want, but what Ikea has done is a good thing for the world, no matter how disingenuous they might be due to their products consuming large amounts of timber for furniture.
- worldvoyageur 6y ago
  I take the point. Removing land from the potential to be developed is different from removing land from production. Not that anyone is saying this directly, but I disagree with the argument that good, productive land left fallow is better than good productive land that is producing. My brother makes a living and feeds his family based on his wood lot. Traces of original settlers from nearly two hundred years ago are found throughout the forest. Which is to say, it is pretty obvious now that it was not suited for farming. But as forest, it is wonderful. There are at least six species of viable commercial trees at scale. Maple, oak, cedar, black cherry, pine. Most original species, or those introduced by the original indigenous people or the first settlers. The crab apple trees pop up in strange places. My brother has a government approved forestry management plan that takes from the forest each year far, far less than what the forest produces. The forest will remain diverse and support a family well, indefinitely. The trees are coming out in a managed way that is creating trails, with clear evidence that wildlife is making good use of the trails. Across the forest, he has installed a wide assortment of habitat for species at risk, birds, bats and others, several of which had not been seen in the area for generations - and they are being used! Under the managed forest, wildlife is returning in which there is no evidence had been there for at least two generations. This wildlife is moving into the adjacent conservation authority land, not the other way around. If this was not an owned and managed forest, this would be happening at a much slower rate. If I had to compare that against a plan that left the land alone, I'd tilt my hand to the one that actually supported people, in harmony with nature.
  - ac29 6y ago
    That sounds pretty awesome, and kudos to your brother and his family for how they are managing the land. But, you must realize what you described is not representative of most commercial timberland. You can see the effects of timber operations via satellite imagery, even quite far zoomed out - see most of western Oregon, for example.
    - tomrod 6y ago
      Do you have any more evidence of this? My own experience with East Texas timberland is more representative of the grandparent comment.
sharkjacobs 6y ago
I think you're being disingenuous if you're saying you don't know the difference between an old growth forest and a 25 year old monoculture stand of trees which is due to be clear-cut and replanted. Kind of irrelevant to the article which you're commenting on though because they're not buying productive forest land to take it out of production, they're buying productive forest land to continue managing and harvesting it, rather to keep it from being rezoned and developed.
okprod 6y ago
It's a rather poorly written, biased article, with a typo in the first sentence, but IKEA isn't taking the land/trees out of circulation. They're using the resources while also aligning this move with their other sustainability goals, including on the carbon side.
dylan604 6y ago
What's the overall effect of forests vs farm/crop land? Forests provide homes to lots of animals. Farms do not. Forests help recycle the air. Farms do not. I'm sure there's others, but you get the point. At least, I hope you can honestly see a difference between a forest and farm land and that this is just some sort of mental gymnastics excersising of your devil's advocate muscles.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  Wait what? Farms don't recycle the air? Do crops operate without CO2 somehow?
  - dylan604 6y ago
    At the same effect as a tree? I'm not a scientist, but I can't imagine an acre of crops having the same effect as an acre of trees. Also, crops are only around for however many months they take to produce their product, then they are harvested, and the ground is tilled under again leaving the land with scratched earth. Trees in a forest keep doing their thing year round. I'm also ignoring any of the chemicals that farms use on the land, but it is something to also consider.

snoshy 6y ago

The difference in this particular case is that Ikea is not taking productive forest land and taking it out of production. It is taking naturally forested land that is at risk of deforestation that would ostensibly then be used for a monoculture wood farming industry. If this land was used for timber, it would reduce biodiversity in Georgia. That would unquestionably be a bad outcome for the environment. Deforestation and a reduction in biodiversity is a major problem the world faces, and it impacts much more than just the trees and plants - much of wildlife like animals, insects, and fish are losing their natural habitat and being driven extinct as a result of this practice. You can hype up timber forestry tactics all you want, but what Ikea has done is a good thing for the world, no matter how disingenuous they might be due to their products consuming large amounts of timber for furniture.

worldvoyageur 6y ago
I take the point. Removing land from the potential to be developed is different from removing land from production. Not that anyone is saying this directly, but I disagree with the argument that good, productive land left fallow is better than good productive land that is producing. My brother makes a living and feeds his family based on his wood lot. Traces of original settlers from nearly two hundred years ago are found throughout the forest. Which is to say, it is pretty obvious now that it was not suited for farming. But as forest, it is wonderful. There are at least six species of viable commercial trees at scale. Maple, oak, cedar, black cherry, pine. Most original species, or those introduced by the original indigenous people or the first settlers. The crab apple trees pop up in strange places. My brother has a government approved forestry management plan that takes from the forest each year far, far less than what the forest produces. The forest will remain diverse and support a family well, indefinitely. The trees are coming out in a managed way that is creating trails, with clear evidence that wildlife is making good use of the trails. Across the forest, he has installed a wide assortment of habitat for species at risk, birds, bats and others, several of which had not been seen in the area for generations - and they are being used! Under the managed forest, wildlife is returning in which there is no evidence had been there for at least two generations. This wildlife is moving into the adjacent conservation authority land, not the other way around. If this was not an owned and managed forest, this would be happening at a much slower rate. If I had to compare that against a plan that left the land alone, I'd tilt my hand to the one that actually supported people, in harmony with nature.
- ac29 6y ago
  That sounds pretty awesome, and kudos to your brother and his family for how they are managing the land. But, you must realize what you described is not representative of most commercial timberland. You can see the effects of timber operations via satellite imagery, even quite far zoomed out - see most of western Oregon, for example.
  - tomrod 6y ago
    Do you have any more evidence of this? My own experience with East Texas timberland is more representative of the grandparent comment.

sharkjacobs 6y ago

I think you're being disingenuous if you're saying you don't know the difference between an old growth forest and a 25 year old monoculture stand of trees which is due to be clear-cut and replanted. Kind of irrelevant to the article which you're commenting on though because they're not buying productive forest land to take it out of production, they're buying productive forest land to continue managing and harvesting it, rather to keep it from being rezoned and developed.

okprod 6y ago

It's a rather poorly written, biased article, with a typo in the first sentence, but IKEA isn't taking the land/trees out of circulation. They're using the resources while also aligning this move with their other sustainability goals, including on the carbon side.

dylan604 6y ago

What's the overall effect of forests vs farm/crop land? Forests provide homes to lots of animals. Farms do not. Forests help recycle the air. Farms do not. I'm sure there's others, but you get the point. At least, I hope you can honestly see a difference between a forest and farm land and that this is just some sort of mental gymnastics excersising of your devil's advocate muscles.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Wait what? Farms don't recycle the air? Do crops operate without CO2 somehow?
- dylan604 6y ago
  At the same effect as a tree? I'm not a scientist, but I can't imagine an acre of crops having the same effect as an acre of trees. Also, crops are only around for however many months they take to produce their product, then they are harvested, and the ground is tilled under again leaving the land with scratched earth. Trees in a forest keep doing their thing year round. I'm also ignoring any of the chemicals that farms use on the land, but it is something to also consider.