5 ms·

Well, that covers the paper, for the most part. Thanks for explaining that. Now, let's talk about the other components: the ink (petrochemicals, for the most

Well, that covers the paper, for the most part. Thanks for explaining that. Now, let's talk about the other components: the ink (petrochemicals, for the most part) the production, transportation, and containers for the ink the runoff into our biosphere from the ink production the transportation of the paper to the printing facility the binding (glue) the transportation of the catalogs to the stores the plastic wrap and other packaging for the catalogs the labor put into it (perhaps those people could be paid to rest instead? probably better for everyone all-around) Did I miss anything? How many dead, displaced, or injured animals do you think that is per catalog? How many humans harmed by exposure to manufactured poison? How many gallons of diesel extracted, transported, refined, transported again, and burned? How many dozen pieces of trucks, trains, and container ships mined, produced, and worn down? Is it still better than viewing the same catalogs online on an already existing computer screen? Every single artefact produced by our system has a similar footprint. It's not just money cost. And I think it's worth considering.

hef19898 6y ago
Transportation has propably the highest negative impact, paper is aheavy bulk product after all. Animal impact, i would say comparativley low. We are talking about decades old economic forests here (there are of course exception which should be prosecuted to the fullest where ever possible). In Europa at least, these activities are not having any more negative impact on wild life. Again, these are not age old natural forestsanymore and haven't been for quite a while. I am not saying pushing the catalogue to digital is a net negative, no idea how that could even be reliably quantified. Just that paper and print production is by no means as negative to the environment as is believed.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  are you saying there are no beings who live in those woods and are displace?
  - danielbarla 6y ago
    I generally agree with your direction. That said, this is incredibly hard to quantify (and also: [1]); because wildlife is not uniformly negatively affected in a clear-cut area. Any "artificial" intervention by humans will favour some animals and harm others. Ignoring the fact that it was probably humans who first cleared out primordial forests, the very act of re-planting a forest probably negatively impacted those species who don't thrive in a forest setting. I'd say having such forests which are relatively unmolested for several years before being harvested are less negative than clearing them out and placing say farms in their place. So, overall it's not the biggest thing to go after, but then, I'm no expert. [1] also depends greatly on what type of cutting we're talking about. I would say it's clear that illegal and / or legal but permanent deforestation is a negative. Above, I'm talking about forests which are planted and re-planted to obtain their wood.
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      good points.
  - varjag 6y ago
    How do you think? https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/_1260x709_crop_center-center/Thailand_Eucalyptus_shutterstock_104751164_web.jpg https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/_1260x709_crop_center-cent...
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      looks cozy. i'd live in there. :)
      - varjag 6y ago
        So guess the animals would too… if you had them food brought in. Not much undergrowth to feed off.
        forgotmypw17 6y ago
DanBC 6y ago
> Did I miss anything? You missed coatings, which can include minerals or plastics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coated_paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coated_paper
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  Thanks for this, I forgot. One of the reasons they do not degrade well.
einpoklum 6y ago
But are you sure this is not all dwarfed by the overall quantities and volumes which IKEA produces, transports and sells? i.e. the furniture, decorations, fittings, textiles etc. ?
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  Precisely, never mind the hundreds of kitchen gadgets they own and the fact that they drove to IKEA in a big truck to buy cheap furniture.
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    I don't own, nor purchase any kitchen gadgets, nor do I drive a truck, nor do I buy furniture.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  You're right, of course. The catalog is dwarved by all the other products that come out of Ikea. I personally don't partake in buying them for 10+ years now, because I think about the stuff above. Plenty of furniture I can get without pulling on that supply chain.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  Possibly true, but so what? Every little bit helps and this seems like an easy win, ecologically speaking. I hate to think how much junk mail I receive every year. We use a 14 gallon recycling bin and it's about half full of waste paper mail EVERY WEEK in the USA. Catalogs, flyers, credit card offers, loan offers, etc. It's disgusting and I can't opt out.
  - einpoklum 6y ago
    > Every little bit helps and this seems like an easy win, ecologically speaking. It is likely not helpful if IKEA gets to enjoy the image of an environmentally-friendly eneterprise based on a token gesture. Many companies engage in such gestures to get themselves off the hook for their involvement in problematic practices. I'm not saying that it's IKEA's fault that people buy throw-away furniture, or that the population is growing etc, but still.
zests 6y ago
Now do computers and computer screens.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  Exactly. This is why I have not bought a new computer in 10+ years, and have only used hand-me-downs for the last 8, with a similar track record on mobile devices.
  - lupire 6y ago
    That 10 yr old computer can browse a catalog.
- criddell 6y ago
  Why? I'm going to have my computer anyway. Moving the catalog to 100% digital is a win.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
markandrewj 6y ago
Pulp production.
jacquesm 6y ago
energy
WillPostForFood 6y ago
You are talking about books in general right?
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  Well, yes, although glossy pages create some extra impact. However, if the book in question is one which will be kept for a while, actually read or referred to, perhaps it is a more worthwhile endeavor? Compare that to the other end of the spectrum, e.g. supermarket ads, most of which do not even leave the plastic bag which carries them into someone's front yard and straight into the trash.
  - WillPostForFood 6y ago
    Or 95% of mail. My daily route is front door -> mailbox -> trash -> front door.
lhorie 6y ago
That's not really an argument against paper catalogs specifically, it looks more like an argument against consumerism in general. But taken to the logical conclusion, that argument can look rather hypocritical, for example why is the discussion about paper vs electronic catalogs for buying furniture and not about why we even need beds and chairs to begin with, while people in japan are fine w/ futons[0] and kotatsu[1]? One can take the argument to extremes and argue that amazonian forests burning in Brazil are partly due to you and I existing and needing to eat and wanting to have kids who need to be fed. It's clearly a slippery slope, and if one draws the moral line to make others bad, while conveniently claiming to be "kosher" themselves, that's not really a convincing line. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futon [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotatsu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotatsu
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  Neither futon nor kotatsu add any vertical space to the room as opposed to having a bed or a table with drawers underneath
  - lhorie 6y ago
    In the context of this discussion (i.e. the suggestion that consumerism is bad from an environmental impact perspective), that'd actually qualify as a feature of futons/kotatsu.
    - heavenlyblue 6y ago
      Using more vertical space means I need a narrower living space which means cities can be more compact. So I don’t think it would qualify.
      - lhorie 6y ago
        Sort of the whole point of a futon is that you put it in the closet during the day so you can reuse the space as your living room. Your bed just takes space that you don't use for 2/3 of the day. Similarly, kotatsu don't require chairs. You should see how compact things are in Japan :)
AngryData 6y ago
You are right, but it would be possible to produce like 99% of that from trees, if we bothered to spend to effort. You can distill trees into petroleum products, however doing so breaks the illusion of how much organic material we are burning through with just a single gallon of fuel or oil. Rather than thinking "its just a single gallon of gas" it turns into "well that as at least like 3-4 trees worth of fuel."

hef19898 6y ago

Transportation has propably the highest negative impact, paper is aheavy bulk product after all. Animal impact, i would say comparativley low. We are talking about decades old economic forests here (there are of course exception which should be prosecuted to the fullest where ever possible). In Europa at least, these activities are not having any more negative impact on wild life. Again, these are not age old natural forestsanymore and haven't been for quite a while. I am not saying pushing the catalogue to digital is a net negative, no idea how that could even be reliably quantified. Just that paper and print production is by no means as negative to the environment as is believed.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
are you saying there are no beings who live in those woods and are displace?
- danielbarla 6y ago
  I generally agree with your direction. That said, this is incredibly hard to quantify (and also: [1]); because wildlife is not uniformly negatively affected in a clear-cut area. Any "artificial" intervention by humans will favour some animals and harm others. Ignoring the fact that it was probably humans who first cleared out primordial forests, the very act of re-planting a forest probably negatively impacted those species who don't thrive in a forest setting. I'd say having such forests which are relatively unmolested for several years before being harvested are less negative than clearing them out and placing say farms in their place. So, overall it's not the biggest thing to go after, but then, I'm no expert. [1] also depends greatly on what type of cutting we're talking about. I would say it's clear that illegal and / or legal but permanent deforestation is a negative. Above, I'm talking about forests which are planted and re-planted to obtain their wood.
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    good points.
- varjag 6y ago
  How do you think? https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/_1260x709_crop_center-center/Thailand_Eucalyptus_shutterstock_104751164_web.jpg https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/_1260x709_crop_center-cent...
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    looks cozy. i'd live in there. :)
    - varjag 6y ago
      So guess the animals would too… if you had them food brought in. Not much undergrowth to feed off.
      - forgotmypw17 6y ago

DanBC 6y ago

> Did I miss anything? You missed coatings, which can include minerals or plastics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coated_paper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coated_paper

forgotmypw17 6y ago
Thanks for this, I forgot. One of the reasons they do not degrade well.

einpoklum 6y ago

But are you sure this is not all dwarfed by the overall quantities and volumes which IKEA produces, transports and sells? i.e. the furniture, decorations, fittings, textiles etc. ?

systemvoltage 6y ago
Precisely, never mind the hundreds of kitchen gadgets they own and the fact that they drove to IKEA in a big truck to buy cheap furniture.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  I don't own, nor purchase any kitchen gadgets, nor do I drive a truck, nor do I buy furniture.
forgotmypw17 6y ago
You're right, of course. The catalog is dwarved by all the other products that come out of Ikea. I personally don't partake in buying them for 10+ years now, because I think about the stuff above. Plenty of furniture I can get without pulling on that supply chain.
alistairSH 6y ago
Possibly true, but so what? Every little bit helps and this seems like an easy win, ecologically speaking. I hate to think how much junk mail I receive every year. We use a 14 gallon recycling bin and it's about half full of waste paper mail EVERY WEEK in the USA. Catalogs, flyers, credit card offers, loan offers, etc. It's disgusting and I can't opt out.
- einpoklum 6y ago
  > Every little bit helps and this seems like an easy win, ecologically speaking. It is likely not helpful if IKEA gets to enjoy the image of an environmentally-friendly eneterprise based on a token gesture. Many companies engage in such gestures to get themselves off the hook for their involvement in problematic practices. I'm not saying that it's IKEA's fault that people buy throw-away furniture, or that the population is growing etc, but still.

zests 6y ago

Now do computers and computer screens.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
Exactly. This is why I have not bought a new computer in 10+ years, and have only used hand-me-downs for the last 8, with a similar track record on mobile devices.
- lupire 6y ago
  That 10 yr old computer can browse a catalog.
criddell 6y ago
Why? I'm going to have my computer anyway. Moving the catalog to 100% digital is a win.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

markandrewj 6y ago

Pulp production.

jacquesm 6y ago

energy

WillPostForFood 6y ago

You are talking about books in general right?

forgotmypw17 6y ago
Well, yes, although glossy pages create some extra impact. However, if the book in question is one which will be kept for a while, actually read or referred to, perhaps it is a more worthwhile endeavor? Compare that to the other end of the spectrum, e.g. supermarket ads, most of which do not even leave the plastic bag which carries them into someone's front yard and straight into the trash.
- WillPostForFood 6y ago
  Or 95% of mail. My daily route is front door -> mailbox -> trash -> front door.

lhorie 6y ago

That's not really an argument against paper catalogs specifically, it looks more like an argument against consumerism in general. But taken to the logical conclusion, that argument can look rather hypocritical, for example why is the discussion about paper vs electronic catalogs for buying furniture and not about why we even need beds and chairs to begin with, while people in japan are fine w/ futons[0] and kotatsu[1]? One can take the argument to extremes and argue that amazonian forests burning in Brazil are partly due to you and I existing and needing to eat and wanting to have kids who need to be fed. It's clearly a slippery slope, and if one draws the moral line to make others bad, while conveniently claiming to be "kosher" themselves, that's not really a convincing line. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futon [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotatsu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotatsu

heavenlyblue 6y ago
Neither futon nor kotatsu add any vertical space to the room as opposed to having a bed or a table with drawers underneath
- lhorie 6y ago
  In the context of this discussion (i.e. the suggestion that consumerism is bad from an environmental impact perspective), that'd actually qualify as a feature of futons/kotatsu.
  - heavenlyblue 6y ago
    Using more vertical space means I need a narrower living space which means cities can be more compact. So I don’t think it would qualify.
    - lhorie 6y ago
      Sort of the whole point of a futon is that you put it in the closet during the day so you can reuse the space as your living room. Your bed just takes space that you don't use for 2/3 of the day. Similarly, kotatsu don't require chairs. You should see how compact things are in Japan :)

AngryData 6y ago

You are right, but it would be possible to produce like 99% of that from trees, if we bothered to spend to effort. You can distill trees into petroleum products, however doing so breaks the illusion of how much organic material we are burning through with just a single gallon of fuel or oil. Rather than thinking "its just a single gallon of gas" it turns into "well that as at least like 3-4 trees worth of fuel."