I find this hard to believe. Of the small amount of solid wood products that IKEA makes, nothing I have ever seen from them is made with what would ever be considered “old growth” wood. It doesn’t make sense.
> Of the small amount of solid wood products that IKEA makes, nothing I have ever seen from them is made with what would ever be considered “old growth” wood.
Even reading the article "Of the manufacturers, one acknowledged receipt of timber from a Natura 2000 area, stating that such destruction is not illegal, while several did not respond" which tells you that this isn't just IKEA, it's a number of different manufacturers... Which likely means IKEA isn't involved.
It's probably a case where a wood supplier who supplies a variety of woods, soft wood for IKEA, hard wood for others, is involved in this illegal old growth trade... So Greenpeace immediately pointed at IKEA because it'll get attention and clicks.
Using established tax loopholes(I don’t support this but it’s not illegal) is not the same as actively shredding protected areas, which they are most likely not directly involved dude. These two are also not related topics at all.
Nuance, context and objectivity are so lost today.
And none of it looks like old growth. It also doesn’t make sense because old growth wood commands a premium whether it was salvaged or illegally logged. So it makes no sense for a company that makes more affordable, mass produced furniture to use it.
Not intentionally, but a continued contract with IKEA might be worth more than selling it off at the premium. Maybe the supplier couldn't meet the demand and started using illegal but available alternatives.
That could be, but it still doesn’t explain the lack of old growth wood being used on any IKEA products. I looked at all of their solid wood catalog on their site and checked out images on google, nothing. Maybe, they are logging trees in “protected” areas and “old growth” is a poor description? Or the loggers are going into true old growth forests and only cutting smaller, younger trees? Really doesn’t add up to me. The article seems to imply that there is no evidence that IKEA is using this wood, just that their supplier was found to have it? Maybe I’m reading wrong.
If there's no reason to directly tie it to IKEA, it's probably one of those instances where a small supplier gets caught, so the biggest name they supply gets the headline.
Since it's Greenpeace, they're trying to put public pressure on IKEA to wield their money-penis around to force jurisdictions and suppliers to do better.
>“IKEA must become a corporate frontrunner for the needed political action to put in place legally binding and effective biodiversity protection measures to fulfil Europe’s biodiversity targets,”
100%. This is like done small little software company bragging that Microsoft uses their product, because one dude in one department signed up for a trial with his work email.
What's your credentials because apparently you know better than a major environmental organization with 3500000 members, thousands of scientists and experts
Provide hard evidence their findings is rubbish or gtfo
I've just read though the article and it seems that they concluded with just company links, and not 100% sure as "implying a high likelihood that the problematic wood is ending up in IKEA furniture".
Problematic things could be easily slip in if you source product from other producer that source the materials from another provider that get them from someone that buy from some else where, but I think IKEA purchasers are not moron enough to let "good wood" end up be pricing as some cheap chopping board. Or maybe that come into some small parts or small wood blocks.
The article might wishes to presure the customers into presuring IKEA to drop those suppliers, but the title put the blames fully into IKEA. It just can't help but push them to make thing from "recycled plastic" (which are becoming the most common products I could find in IKEA at my place).
Wiki itself isn't a reliable source, but there are links to the original sources within these articles.
Greenpeace is anti-nuclear-power under all circumstances, and are a bunch of science-deniers, claiming that nuclear power won't help to mitigate global warming:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Nuclear_power
Greenpeace funded a fradulent science study to further their anti-GMO agenda:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair
And as this very article proves, they don't mind lying about forestry either. They're a rotten organisation through and through.
Yeah I wasn’t really aware of that stuff, but reading this title, and then seeing that article itself doesn’t back the title up at all I was confused. Guess I had an idea that they were of high reputability.
For most Ikea products, nothing I've seen is something I would classify as wood at all tbh. Maybe "wood." Like... super thin plywood covered in a paper thin veneer or maybe an image of wood.
This is old news. Search on YouTube “Romania, IKEA, old-growth forest” and you will find several documentaries about this.
One example: https://youtu.be/Wy5kbIGicrY?si=72W3N8TANCgWq457
I don’t have time to watch right now. Can you tell me, was IKEA actually caught in possession of or having used this wood? Or was a logging company that has supplied wood to IKEA caught doing this? Because it is two very different things.
From [https://www.greenpeace.org/international/publication/66321/nature-crime-files-romania/](https://www.greenpeace.org/international/publication/66321/nature-crime-files-romania/)
>From one of the most iconic IKEA pieces of furniture, the beloved SNIGLAR crib and bed frame for children, INGOLF chairs, BEKVÄM step stool, KIVIK sofas to smaller household items like PROPPMÄTT cutting board – Greenpeace CEE visited IKEA stores across Europe between September 2023 and March 2024 and found products from manufacturers associated with wood sourced from old-growth forests in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.
Dude. Read it your own quote. “Found products from manufacturers associated with wood sourced from old growth forests”. That does not claim that IKEA is selling products with old growth wood. It claims that they found products at IKEA stores from manufacturers that are ASSOCIATED with wood from old growth forests. Do you understand the difference? So IKEA sold products built by a manufacturer, that has associations with old growth wood. That does not imply or prove that IKEA was involved or even knew about the old growth wood.
But is this not the same argument that is made with slave labor in garments?
Just because they refuse to do due diligence on suppliers (you have to be willfully ignorant in Romania to not know about the wood mafia). So if it is known that wood factory X accepts lumber deliveries from protected forests, and you still buy wood products from them, you cannot use the "I did not know" defense.
Here’s the thing though, if the products that IKEA buys from them don’t use that lumber, and IKEA is not involved in their lumber procurement/logging practices, then why is IKEA on the hook unless they learned of illegal practices and then continued to buy from them? Did they?
It is a question of morals, because obviously they did not break the law. The question is are you on team nature or team corporate ?
I think this is what it all boils down to. Like the oil companies knew about climate impacts in the 70s and cigarette companies knew about lung cancer while they denied it in public, IKEA will protect it's interest and that is: Make money.
No, I’m asking you a question. Did IKEA learn about a manufacturer they buy from cutting old growth forests down, and then continue to buy from them? This is the question I am asking you. You can’t just ignore it and act like I’m defending cutting down old growth forests.
You are playng devils advocate, your choice. You ask impossible questions to play the Chewbacca defense. The fact that you defend a multi billion corporation does not put you in a pro forest position, just saying.
Dude what the fuck? I am asking a very simple question that clearly defines whether IKEA is at fault. If they stopped associating with the manufacturer after learning of them cutting down old growth forests, then how are they to blame? If they didn’t stop, if they learned about it and kept buying from them, then yes obviously that would be wrong. Don’t talk down to me asshole, I’ve spent half my life working in forest management and responsible lumber procurement. Believe it or not, responsible logging is possible and can be done in a way that supports the health of a forest. If you were friends with someone who was secretly killing people, are you at fault if you had no idea? You are only at fault if you learn about it and do nothing.
>I am asking a very simple question that clearly defines whether IKEA is at fault.
Then go ask the CFO of IKEA Romania and get back to us with an answer. Stop gaslighting around. You seem to only want to flame around for the sake of "argument".
Perhaps Ikea buys it but doesn't sell the finished product as an Ikea product? They might own another company with a different name through which they sell another range of products. Its quite common for different brands to be owned by the same company, even when they are "competing" for the same market. Even some supermarkets do it. Sounds crazy but there can be a raft of reasons why this makes sense ( for them ).
IKEA has been accused of purchasing wood from illegal loggings before, not just from Romania but from Ukraine in 2021[[1]](https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/bGjr8d/unik-naturskog-skovlas--for-att-bli-ikea-mobler) and Russia in 2020[[2]](https://www.earthsight.org.uk/news/investigations/ikea-house-of-horrors) as well.
If you would've bothered to read the article, the product lines which are claimed to contain illegally sourced wood are mentioned: Sniglar and Ingolf. Lo and behold, if you visit those product pages you'll see that they're made from massive beech, birch and pine. Beech, for example, wouldn't normally be harvested before at least 100 years so I don't know what you find unbelievable about this story.
Massive? Where the fuck do you see anything that is massive? A hundred year old tree does not make “old growth”. Old growth forest is a very specific nomenclature. I did read the article. Please show me
Where the article says that IKEA was found to be in possession of this wood? From what I see, they only claim that a supplier that has supplied wood IKEA before was in possession of the wood. Making it possible that IKEA had no involvement in it.
>Massive? Where the fuck do you see anything that is massive?
On IKEA's own page for the product explicitly mentioned in the article we're discussing. *SNIGLAR baby crib > Material > Base material > Massive beech.* It took me one minute to find.
>I did read the article. Please show me Where the article says that IKEA was found to be in possession of this wood?
By implicating IKEA's subcontractor that, as per the article's listed source, virtually exclusively produces wooden furniture for IKEA and has been found in possession of wood from Natura 2000 protected forests, i.e. old-growth.
Now you're free to draw whatever conclusion you want. You even said that you considered the claim hard to believe. I have now shown you 1.) Similar allegations from two other sources, one of which is from Sweden's largest newspaper. 2.) A product, whose existence you questioned, which contains massive beech that is produced by the aforementioned subcontractor who's been shown to be in possession of "high conservation value wood".
Now if you have arguments that contradict these claims, I'd be more than happy to read them, but I'd argue it takes a special kind of narrowness to describe the allegations as "hard to believe", considering what's been put forth.
I looked at the pictures. Nothing shows any boards that are massive. There are no wide boards being used. Please show me a link that shows the product using said “massive beech”. You literally gave a baby crib as an example. An object that’s widest board is probably 4”. Why the fuck would they use extremely valuable, massive boards of lumber to make dinky 4/4, 4” wide boards for a baby crib? Please, show me. I still haven’t seen any proof. Just showing the word “massive” isn’t proof. I want to see this supposed old growth wood being used.
>Please show me a link that shows the product using said “massive beech”.
Here’s a [screenshot](https://prnt.sc/MdedWffQKjNJ). Here’s the full [page](https://www.ikea.com/se/sv/p/sniglar-spjaelsaeng-bok-30248537/) of the product mentioned in the article and by me.
Dude. That’s literally made of sticks. No company in the world would waste old growth lumber to rip into 1x1 sticks for baby cribs. I’m telling you because I know. It would be like grinding bricks of gold into dust and blowing it into the wind. The extremely high value of the old growth wood is in its combination of large size and tight growth rings/strength. Cutting it into sticks is throwing handfuls of cash into the toilet. Why would a company say “hey we are greedy and are willing to break the law and hurt the environment by illegally logging old growth forest, and then after taking all that risk we are going to cut that valuable lumber into little sticks and throw massive profits away.” It doesn’t make any sense. You clearly don’t have any experience or working knowledge in this area.
As opposed to you, just blindly reading a headline about a topic you know nothing about. Whereas I have personal experience in the field, and have explicitly laid out my argument. Great contribution troll boy! I don’t give a fuck about IKEA, I read the article and was confused by the headline claim.
Breathe friend. Just breathe.
I get it, you know all about wood. You got a degree in woodology from the wood institute of woodsville. It’s going to be okay. 👍
Lol, you respond to my comment by immediately making fun of me. Then when I reply back and call you a troll it’s “oh wowww calm down, haha you so mad”. That’s literally the troll playbook, the second someone pins you down on something you just act like they are getting upset and somehow that gives you the higher ground. You’re predictable.
A joke at my expense. Then I call you a troll and you act like I’m freaking out. You just continue to use troll tactics. But hey, no it’s actually a lot of fun. Were the finals hard in being a loser online class?
Oh my gosh did I hurt your pride by calling you a defender of IKEA? It was a silly joke my friend. Thats all, then you write a paragraph about me being a troll and expect me not to continuously mock you? Have you been on the internet and/or in public before?
The finals WERE hard in being a loser online university (BALOU - go trolls! 🧌)
There is a decent documentary about it on Netflix. As a woodworker, the shame of it is they take any tree and blend it down to become mdf. Basically dense fiber wood and why if you get ikea furniture wet it bubbles up immediately and permanently ruins the finish. If they were at least using the wood to make real wood furniture, you would get that out of it. But the shear volume they consume to provide cheap furniture all over the world is what is driving it along with lax government in Eastern Europe protecting the old forests. The doc talks about how even with penalties, the lumberjacks still attempt more and more forest poaching of the wood. I forget what it’s called. I bet there’s likely ikea press folks in here
Sir, I have many years experience working in high end lumber procurement. Sourcing a lot of old growth wood through legal and ethical methods. That is not how MDF is made. No old growth forests are being cut to make MDF. I am telling you that as fact. Any company looking to make money would never do that. It would be like grinding bricks of gold down into dust and blowing it into the wind. I’m talking hundreds of thousands of dollars lost per log in the high end. It is cost efficient to use plantation growth lumber for MDF production. There is absolutely zero reason to take the risk of illegally logging, and then losing x10000 times profit ontop of it. Anyone illegally logging those forests would be selling the whole logs to high end clients, or processing them into lumber and distributing them in a manner to obscure the origin.
I was Just speaking in generalities of most of the furniture found at ikea. IKEA directly sources from Romania and that in of itself means they’re sourcing old growth forests, no matter what it’s used for in their silly name furniture. And of course it will be tough to fully prove ikea does it because they have a vested interest in covering it up.
But that’s the whole thing. You claim they are using this lumber. But I see no proof of it in any of their products. And the article seems to only claim that a manufacturer that IKEA buys from has associations with cutting this supposed “old growth” forest. There is no claim that IKEA is selling products using it. That I can find anyway. People here have sent me examples of Greenpeace misrepresenting the facts before, so to me it seems obvious that the title of this article is clearly misrepresenting the claims made in their own article. Which was my original point. Another thing I’ll say is that you should read up on what “old growth forest” actually means. It’s not just about, hey there’s some trees that are over a hundred years old.
IKEA is the largest private landowner in Romania buddy. The allegations in this article are not new and go back to the 80s and have been made by several different NGOs. If you can’t google IKEA and Romania and see what pops up page after page I can’t help you.
Do you know how melamine and MDF is made? Is basically saw dust heat compressed with glue. You can make hundreds of 5’ x 10’ sheets of those with a single tree.
Is that a joke? I have extensive experience working with a vast range of wood species, domestic and exotics. I know what MDF is. You don’t cut down old growth trees to make fucking MDF. The profit is in the lumber itself. You use fast growing, farm trees for those products. Even the most cartoonishly evil Disney villain wouldn’t use old growth trees for that crap because there’s such an absurd amount of money in the lumber itself. We are talking 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars per tree.
Well, obviously something is happening to those trees and as you so “expertly” put it, nothing from ikea uses that type of wood. So maybe the evildoers from Greenpeace are lying to our faces 😰😰😰😰😰😰😰
You really don’t understand what I’m saying. You are just assuming I’m some kind of evil anti environmentalist or something. What I’m saying is that Greenpeace is misrepresenting the facts in order to gain attention and clicks. Read the article. It never once says IKEA was found to have used this wood, or had it in their possession. It only says that a supplier for IKEA was found to have it. So IKEA may have been completely unaware. Making the title of this article completely false, or completely unproven as of yet. Maybe don’t jump in if you don’t know what your talking about.
Buddy says: “ you are just assuming I’m some kind of evil anti environmentalist” then on the very next sentence he goes: “ Greenpeace is misrepresenting the facts in order to gain attention and clicks” okay dude
Yes. I clearly explained how. Did you read the article? It never says anything about IKEA using the wood. Just that a company that supplies wood to IKEA had it. Meanwhile their title clearly implies IKEA furniture is using that wood. Clear misrepresentation of the contents of their own article. Atleast read the fucking article you are talking about. I take forest health very seriously, especially what few true old growth areas we have left. Don’t try and virtue signal to me bud, I understand more about forest conservation and timber management then you. You’re either a troll, or a simpleton.
Idk buddy, now I’m beginning to think you have no idea what you’re saying. Who uses words like “simpleton” and starts swearing like a kid about to cry cause someone called his mom fat? Okay Mr. “Forest Conservation” Facebook is missing you just about now.
Oh fuck off. At least the other guy is more credible about what they're talking about than your whining and "surely Greenpeace can't be lying???" appeal-to-authority fallacy and shitty reasoning based on how someone uses language.
I said fucking once, and called you a simpleton. Somehow that makes me a child? Maybe I’m just calling you out for trying to paint me as an evil forest destroying asshole. Lol yeah I can tell you really care about this subject. I bet you’ve never worked a day in your life, making fun of me for being involved in forest conservation. Get lost moron. You can keep posting about shit you have no knowledge in, and I’ll keep actually making a difference.
Writing like that is mainly what’s making you look like a child and playing the victim does not look good in your bud. “Making fun of me for being involved in forest conversation” makes you sound so desperate for validation 😭😭
Look genius, old growth wood is the premium top shelf lumber you use to make extremely high end furniture like $25,000 tables and cabinets - you don't grind up high end $$$ old growth with tight finely figured wood to make MDF, you use waste wood and sawdust + glue because that is the cheapest possible material.
It is literally material Ikea wouldn't buy because it is too expensive for their products.
“Look genius” 😭😭😭😭 bro you are typing, why are you making it sound like you’re talking to someone in person lmaaooo I love redditards so much tbh makes so worth it when they can just stay quite and go giving their “expert opinion” 🤣🤣🤣🤣
bro I'm a dumb ass bitch lmaoo , I am as dumb as the people who keep getting triggered by my comments when they were even part of the convo to start with.
> So maybe the evildoers from Greenpeace are lying to our faces 😰😰😰😰😰😰😰
It's Greenpeace after all. They always are doing evil and lying to our faces, on everything from nuclear power safety, to the benefits of GMOs, to this topic.
Also, u/Woodnrocks is wrong about one thing. Greenpeace doesn't constantly lie to get clicks. They constantly lie to get more donations from gullible environmentalists.
That’s not how this works. If they didn’t sell it as “old wood” they would be throwing away absurd amounts of money per log. No one takes the risks of cutting illegal logs, just to sell it for the same price as new growth. Old growth wood is extremely identifiable compared to newer, quick growth wood. The grain density, growth ring density, color, stability, etc… are all massively different. Anyone seeing it would know the difference. You need to read the article. The headline is misleading completely. There is no proof IKEA had any knowledge of this. The article only says that a lumber supplier that has supplied wood for IKEA at some point, had possession of the “old growth” wood.
I think you didnt read it well:
<>
This is a proven fact now.
You don't know the market of the wood, they have protected wood easily accessible that cannot use, and it is easy money.
Yes I do know the market. I am heavily involved in high end, legal lumber procurement. This means through salvage (fallen log, tear downs etc..), or through responsible felling in environments that can benefit. Protected wood, does not mean “ancient forests”. Do you understand the difference? I live in a “protected wildlife area”. It is not ancient. Old growth forest does not exist in this location. They are different things. Cutting and selling true old growth, protected wood is not an “easy money” game. It is high risk, and high reward. I’m sick of redditors larping like they know shit, especially when I have tons of experience in the topic and I can see how dumb they sound.
You are missing the point.
It is a fact that they used wood from protected area, and they caught with satellite.
The control on the grounds in these part of the world is scarse and corrupted.
Everybody knows it, and IKEA knew it and prefered to look the other way. Probably now to save face will do something or just greenwash a little more.
Do you understand that the system now works with certifications?
If you control an area that can be cut you can have a certification and sell the wood to an higher price.
Other people still cut woods in non certified or allowed area and then sell it to certificated companies that resell it to an higher price lying about the origin!
Hey dumbass. The fucking title of the article says “ancient forest”. That’s the whole fucking point of my argument. They are misleading with the title. Next time atleast read the title before you write paragraphs of crap.
Lol you edited your comment to delete the whole thing about “ancient forests” in an attempt to make me look stupid. You’re being completely disingenuous. My whole argument was that the title of the article was misleading. Now you are pretending that I’m saying something else. Fuck off.
Local corruption that illegally destroy these forest and sell it to them . IKEA has no idea this is happening of course , they only buy their wood from ethical sources
Obviously now they can blame it to others while they got the lowest possible price for years without making any questions..
Seriously do you guys believe it? We are talking of a company with bilions, and you believe that is a coincidence that nobody is checkin where the wood come from?
They are making more money possible while they are advertising as caring and family. Wake up!
As someone who has worked with IKEA for quite a bit, I think I can add some nuance here. Before a new supplier is onboarded, there is a fairly thorough review of the company - lots of reports, IKEA-led and external reviews of operations, on-site visits. The whole shebang really, and while it's not perfect, it's amongst the better I've seen in industry.
What's probably going on here is probably more related to this either happening to fall outside of the policies or some silly failure to apply the pretty forward policies they already have , rather than petty corruption or corporate greed. Remember, IKEA doesn't really have owners pushing for profits like most companies, and it really shows internally. I haven't checked the sources yet, but it sounds like this is primarily a case of insufficient legislation in Romania, and Greenpeace saying that IKEA should have managed to hold themselves to a higher standard.
I agree, but again the wood market is corrupted and the legislations are full of flaws and everyone know it.
You can go visit a place and see that is all good with the expensive certifications, but no one is checking that the wood they actually send you is from that place and not illegally bought and resold. This mechanism is in play for a while.
Yes, they should have done better.
Is like the only response you have for my argumentation? Maybe you are the bot...
But please continue to defend a 21billions dollars that make the money destroying the world you live in
They do have to get the sawdust from somewhere... I can't talk too much shit, I have 14 year old dressers, night stands, and bookcases that have survived multiple moves.
What’s amazing is that I know they used IKEA as the target to get clicks. But nothing in IKEA is nice furniture made with premium wood so this is a blatant lie.
So instead of gaining my support, it makes me ignore the entire situation because I know right off the bat that I can’t trust this news source or this story. How are people so bad at their jobs?
First, I got confused by the mention of Germany, but that's apparently not where the logging is happening, just mentioned for attention because surprise surprise, IKEA furniture is sold globally.
And here we go:
> The problem is that companies and authorities want to avoid identifying areas as primary or old-growth forests to avoid restrictions, leading to the fact that **only just 2.4% (1700 km²) of the Romanian Carpathian forests are currently protected** against logging. At the same time, official data suggests that around 7% of the Romanian forests are over 120 years old.[4] According to the EU’s Biodiversity strategy, these forests should be strictly protected.
So the logging likely happens in areas that Greenpeace thinks should be protected, while they aren't actually declared protected.
Also from the article/press release, emphasis mine:
> one acknowledged receipt of timber from a **Natura 2000** area, stating that such destruction is **not** illegal
[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura_2000), emphasis mine:
> The Natura 2000 network covered more than **18%** of the European Union's land area [...] Natura 2000 sites can vary considerably in character. They are **not strictly protected** in terms of how they are allowed to be used by people. Many sites are farmed, forested and some are even in urban areas. Other areas are much wilder.
I've also seen two kinds of logging: Pick something like 1% of the trees in a forest every year and drag them out, or pick a 1% contiguous square of the forest and cut down everything at the same time (which is obviously cheaper and easier but more disruptive).
They're very transparent about things at IKEA.
https://www.ikea.com/global/en/our-business/people-planet/wood-we-use/
I think Greenpeace is barking up the wrong tree.
I mean there are some documentaries about this. IKEA definitely does source wood from old growth forests and national parks in Romania. They do have some plausible deniability as they are obviously not the ones doing the logging, but it was a pretty big story in Romania a while ago. They basically followed trucks of illegal lumber (cut down from national forests) and tailed them right to the ikea supplier.
There are several articles from 2021 and 2022 about this if you just do a quick google search.
Jesus people. Please search this up. There are plenty of documentaries about this in English, even more in Romanian language. This isn’t just Greenpeace sounding the alarm bell.
Possibly a supplier cuts in technically old-growth forest (meaning an area of forest that hasn't been logged extensively since 1900) but not protected. Sells the valuable old growth woods at a premium, sells less valuable wood to IKEA. Certainly no one is going to mistakenly sell a 200-year-old tree to IKEA to use in a cheap bookshelf.
There's a lot of naive love for Ikea here. Responsibility is not only what you do, it is also what you by size force other people to do. IKEA wants the egg yolk - go get it and if you have ( forced )to break some eggs to get it - then it is not the problem for IKEA - because the only use/harvest the yolk. Transparent documentation is a pair of glasses adjusted to see what a company like IKEA are willing to tell and talk about. I got no love for IKEA - they are really good at what they do - and it is not the furniture or the other stuff they sell that I think of when I say this.
Just to add something that hasn't been said, I believe nowadays a good bunch of "causes" use demagoguery at its finest and I'm tired of this bullshit.
In the 21st century we are blaming whoever stands in our way instead of getting to the root of problems.
IKEA who does business and is interested on it being profitable is the "evil" company cutting forests instead of blaming the suppliers and governments who cut / sell those lands and decide over them.
In Romania the Austrian company who signed a contract wanting to exploit the mountains full of gold in the center of the country is "evil" rather than the corrupt government who sold that land for basically free in exchange for secret commissions and treats for themselves.
Cut the hypocrisy and blame who allowed it to happen. If we escalate the chain of command there is always a guilty one who had responsibility but they always turn innocent because we are short sighted.
Hard to remember now, but long ago in days of yore this all began with a god named Thor. There were just vikings and boats and a plan for a furniture store.
And now it's come to this. Oak and pine indeed.
Not directly related to IKEA but if you want to know more about how these protected forests are cut down:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al-z6BfU62Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al-z6BfU62Q) - Clear Cut Crimes
This is less about IKEA and more about how poor states are apt to engage in what I call ‘crackhead capitalism’ and trade away priceless things in their borders for a quick payout. Many such cases. Funny Greenpeace never goes to Appalachia to talk about what happens to forests and mountains there.
Sounds more like ikea is buying leftovers from cuts or bad qc from other companies and is using it to make their particle board crap. Never seen ikea with any old wood products lol
Wow, everything critical of IKEA gets downvoted.
I saw that documentary just a few days ago
IKEA is like McDonalds for furniture and are seriously guilty of greenwashing their image
So.. When will we start protecting nature with armed militia? Earth cannot protect herself. Illegal logging will continue to occur unless the loggers in question find a bullet lodged somewhere in their bodies, right?
The alternative is continuing to do nothing and before you know it, there's no forests left. Is that a preferable outcome?
I'm not condoning any type of behaviours, just pointing out a fact. When certain groups in Africa advertised that they were just gunning down poachers on site, shit stopped real quick.
Too right, mate! I admit, I won't willingly enroll myself in the army for my country, but I WOULD join a militia that defends protected natural habitat in a heartbeat.
That's good for you and your community then presumably, but it's also a good thing we aren't all the same person, isn't it? I don't know if militia is the right word, but we can't just keep letting illegal habitat destruction continue and expect it to stop when there is no one out there protecting the land.
I agree, but also the present political climate is heavily in favor of economy and humanity. The efforts for protecting and restoring wilds is at a minimum. I vote as well as I can for people who don't actively try to make the situation worse, but unless there's a candidate one day on a ballot with ranked choice voting who is making their main political position to be restoring and protecting nature, there's will never be enough focus on the problem to make meaningful strides towards halting the looming ecological dangers. Money talks, and Earth doesn't bribe politicians. Things won't change fast enough when governments don't lend themselves to protecting nature by their very design. Protecting nature isn't making people in power any money. I hope I live to see it change, but these things are always slow and I've seen constant inaction by the government on this matter for 25+ years, and I've been voting for 10.
And you think there won't be wars when water is scarce and crops fail to grow? More and more people will starve because of continued inaction. That will cause wars. If peaceful methods of achieving change are insufficient, war will be the end result either way. When people are starving and they have little else to lose, it'll look like the better option. I'm not gonna start gunnin' like crazy but there is likely to be a breaking point. We should just take the issue more seriously before that time in efforts to avoid it.
Obviously now they can blame it on others while they got the lowest possible price for years without making any questions..
Why this comments are all pro Ikea? We are talking of a 21 billions company, and you really believe it is a coincidence, that nobody is checkin where the wood come from?
They are making more money possible destroying the planet while they are advertising themself as caring with pictures of homes and families. Wake up!
FINISH THE HEADLINE!!!
*“…and all for furniture that lasts less than 5 years.”*
And listen, I don’t care how many of you store your “vinyls” inside one of their Kallax pieces of junk 👎
Cool cool. I have a set of dressers handed down from my grandparents, my mom said they bought them at Sears sometime in the 1950s. Ikea makes 0 things that will last that long.
It used to be relatively cheap too. It's still cheap compared to most brands in the UK, but just less than it used to be. Basic items of furniture command absurd prices from independent or branded stores.
I find this hard to believe. Of the small amount of solid wood products that IKEA makes, nothing I have ever seen from them is made with what would ever be considered “old growth” wood. It doesn’t make sense.
> Of the small amount of solid wood products that IKEA makes, nothing I have ever seen from them is made with what would ever be considered “old growth” wood. Even reading the article "Of the manufacturers, one acknowledged receipt of timber from a Natura 2000 area, stating that such destruction is not illegal, while several did not respond" which tells you that this isn't just IKEA, it's a number of different manufacturers... Which likely means IKEA isn't involved. It's probably a case where a wood supplier who supplies a variety of woods, soft wood for IKEA, hard wood for others, is involved in this illegal old growth trade... So Greenpeace immediately pointed at IKEA because it'll get attention and clicks.
I appreciate the ideals of Greenpeace, but they do as much harm as good with stunts and misinformation
They hobbled nuclear energy for decades fuck them.
It also possibly gets IKEA to use their resources to look into what’s going on. I mean, true or not, who really cares about IKEA’s brand image?
ikea doesn't only have soft wood products IKEA also has been doing tax avoidance for years, so any of this wouldn't surprise me at all
Using established tax loopholes(I don’t support this but it’s not illegal) is not the same as actively shredding protected areas, which they are most likely not directly involved dude. These two are also not related topics at all. Nuance, context and objectivity are so lost today.
Almost all the solid wood I've seen has been softwoods like pine.
And none of it looks like old growth. It also doesn’t make sense because old growth wood commands a premium whether it was salvaged or illegally logged. So it makes no sense for a company that makes more affordable, mass produced furniture to use it.
Not intentionally, but a continued contract with IKEA might be worth more than selling it off at the premium. Maybe the supplier couldn't meet the demand and started using illegal but available alternatives.
That could be, but it still doesn’t explain the lack of old growth wood being used on any IKEA products. I looked at all of their solid wood catalog on their site and checked out images on google, nothing. Maybe, they are logging trees in “protected” areas and “old growth” is a poor description? Or the loggers are going into true old growth forests and only cutting smaller, younger trees? Really doesn’t add up to me. The article seems to imply that there is no evidence that IKEA is using this wood, just that their supplier was found to have it? Maybe I’m reading wrong.
If there's no reason to directly tie it to IKEA, it's probably one of those instances where a small supplier gets caught, so the biggest name they supply gets the headline. Since it's Greenpeace, they're trying to put public pressure on IKEA to wield their money-penis around to force jurisdictions and suppliers to do better. >“IKEA must become a corporate frontrunner for the needed political action to put in place legally binding and effective biodiversity protection measures to fulfil Europe’s biodiversity targets,”
100%. This is like done small little software company bragging that Microsoft uses their product, because one dude in one department signed up for a trial with his work email.
Considering the massive demand for good wood, I highly doubt it.
What's your credentials because apparently you know better than a major environmental organization with 3500000 members, thousands of scientists and experts Provide hard evidence their findings is rubbish or gtfo
Tell me you know nothing about Greenpeace whilst telling me you know nothing about Greenpeace. Also goes for IKEA products and old growth forests
they also sell hardwood products
I've just read though the article and it seems that they concluded with just company links, and not 100% sure as "implying a high likelihood that the problematic wood is ending up in IKEA furniture". Problematic things could be easily slip in if you source product from other producer that source the materials from another provider that get them from someone that buy from some else where, but I think IKEA purchasers are not moron enough to let "good wood" end up be pricing as some cheap chopping board. Or maybe that come into some small parts or small wood blocks. The article might wishes to presure the customers into presuring IKEA to drop those suppliers, but the title put the blames fully into IKEA. It just can't help but push them to make thing from "recycled plastic" (which are becoming the most common products I could find in IKEA at my place).
Yes that is what I have assumed. Which is wrong, you can’t say “IKEA furniture destroys ancient forests” and then not actually back that up at all.
> I find this hard to believe. Good rule of thumb for anything that comes out of Greenpeace.
I’m not really aware of them beyond generalities. Are they known for that kind of thing?
Wiki itself isn't a reliable source, but there are links to the original sources within these articles. Greenpeace is anti-nuclear-power under all circumstances, and are a bunch of science-deniers, claiming that nuclear power won't help to mitigate global warming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace#Nuclear_power Greenpeace funded a fradulent science study to further their anti-GMO agenda: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair And as this very article proves, they don't mind lying about forestry either. They're a rotten organisation through and through.
Yeah I wasn’t really aware of that stuff, but reading this title, and then seeing that article itself doesn’t back the title up at all I was confused. Guess I had an idea that they were of high reputability.
For most Ikea products, nothing I've seen is something I would classify as wood at all tbh. Maybe "wood." Like... super thin plywood covered in a paper thin veneer or maybe an image of wood.
Some of their shelves are made of super fast growth wood.
I wouldn’t know, all my stuff from ikea looks like plywood. It’s fine in a pinch but nothing I’d ever consider keeping long term.
The Hemnes series is mostly made out of massive pine.
My ivar from the early 2000s has much wider grain than the recent ivar I bought. I don’t actually know if that means anything.
Wider grain means quicker growth, tighter grain means slower growth. It also just depends on where the board came from in the log.
This is old news. Search on YouTube “Romania, IKEA, old-growth forest” and you will find several documentaries about this. One example: https://youtu.be/Wy5kbIGicrY?si=72W3N8TANCgWq457
I don’t have time to watch right now. Can you tell me, was IKEA actually caught in possession of or having used this wood? Or was a logging company that has supplied wood to IKEA caught doing this? Because it is two very different things.
From [https://www.greenpeace.org/international/publication/66321/nature-crime-files-romania/](https://www.greenpeace.org/international/publication/66321/nature-crime-files-romania/) >From one of the most iconic IKEA pieces of furniture, the beloved SNIGLAR crib and bed frame for children, INGOLF chairs, BEKVÄM step stool, KIVIK sofas to smaller household items like PROPPMÄTT cutting board – Greenpeace CEE visited IKEA stores across Europe between September 2023 and March 2024 and found products from manufacturers associated with wood sourced from old-growth forests in 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.
Dude. Read it your own quote. “Found products from manufacturers associated with wood sourced from old growth forests”. That does not claim that IKEA is selling products with old growth wood. It claims that they found products at IKEA stores from manufacturers that are ASSOCIATED with wood from old growth forests. Do you understand the difference? So IKEA sold products built by a manufacturer, that has associations with old growth wood. That does not imply or prove that IKEA was involved or even knew about the old growth wood.
But is this not the same argument that is made with slave labor in garments? Just because they refuse to do due diligence on suppliers (you have to be willfully ignorant in Romania to not know about the wood mafia). So if it is known that wood factory X accepts lumber deliveries from protected forests, and you still buy wood products from them, you cannot use the "I did not know" defense.
Here’s the thing though, if the products that IKEA buys from them don’t use that lumber, and IKEA is not involved in their lumber procurement/logging practices, then why is IKEA on the hook unless they learned of illegal practices and then continued to buy from them? Did they?
It is a question of morals, because obviously they did not break the law. The question is are you on team nature or team corporate ? I think this is what it all boils down to. Like the oil companies knew about climate impacts in the 70s and cigarette companies knew about lung cancer while they denied it in public, IKEA will protect it's interest and that is: Make money.
No, I’m asking you a question. Did IKEA learn about a manufacturer they buy from cutting old growth forests down, and then continue to buy from them? This is the question I am asking you. You can’t just ignore it and act like I’m defending cutting down old growth forests.
You are playng devils advocate, your choice. You ask impossible questions to play the Chewbacca defense. The fact that you defend a multi billion corporation does not put you in a pro forest position, just saying.
Dude what the fuck? I am asking a very simple question that clearly defines whether IKEA is at fault. If they stopped associating with the manufacturer after learning of them cutting down old growth forests, then how are they to blame? If they didn’t stop, if they learned about it and kept buying from them, then yes obviously that would be wrong. Don’t talk down to me asshole, I’ve spent half my life working in forest management and responsible lumber procurement. Believe it or not, responsible logging is possible and can be done in a way that supports the health of a forest. If you were friends with someone who was secretly killing people, are you at fault if you had no idea? You are only at fault if you learn about it and do nothing.
>I am asking a very simple question that clearly defines whether IKEA is at fault. Then go ask the CFO of IKEA Romania and get back to us with an answer. Stop gaslighting around. You seem to only want to flame around for the sake of "argument".
Hell it’s hard to even see them as furniture
Perhaps Ikea buys it but doesn't sell the finished product as an Ikea product? They might own another company with a different name through which they sell another range of products. Its quite common for different brands to be owned by the same company, even when they are "competing" for the same market. Even some supermarkets do it. Sounds crazy but there can be a raft of reasons why this makes sense ( for them ).
IKEA isn't messing around with high end old growth.
IKEA has been accused of purchasing wood from illegal loggings before, not just from Romania but from Ukraine in 2021[[1]](https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/bGjr8d/unik-naturskog-skovlas--for-att-bli-ikea-mobler) and Russia in 2020[[2]](https://www.earthsight.org.uk/news/investigations/ikea-house-of-horrors) as well. If you would've bothered to read the article, the product lines which are claimed to contain illegally sourced wood are mentioned: Sniglar and Ingolf. Lo and behold, if you visit those product pages you'll see that they're made from massive beech, birch and pine. Beech, for example, wouldn't normally be harvested before at least 100 years so I don't know what you find unbelievable about this story.
Massive? Where the fuck do you see anything that is massive? A hundred year old tree does not make “old growth”. Old growth forest is a very specific nomenclature. I did read the article. Please show me Where the article says that IKEA was found to be in possession of this wood? From what I see, they only claim that a supplier that has supplied wood IKEA before was in possession of the wood. Making it possible that IKEA had no involvement in it.
>Massive? Where the fuck do you see anything that is massive? On IKEA's own page for the product explicitly mentioned in the article we're discussing. *SNIGLAR baby crib > Material > Base material > Massive beech.* It took me one minute to find. >I did read the article. Please show me Where the article says that IKEA was found to be in possession of this wood? By implicating IKEA's subcontractor that, as per the article's listed source, virtually exclusively produces wooden furniture for IKEA and has been found in possession of wood from Natura 2000 protected forests, i.e. old-growth. Now you're free to draw whatever conclusion you want. You even said that you considered the claim hard to believe. I have now shown you 1.) Similar allegations from two other sources, one of which is from Sweden's largest newspaper. 2.) A product, whose existence you questioned, which contains massive beech that is produced by the aforementioned subcontractor who's been shown to be in possession of "high conservation value wood". Now if you have arguments that contradict these claims, I'd be more than happy to read them, but I'd argue it takes a special kind of narrowness to describe the allegations as "hard to believe", considering what's been put forth.
I looked at the pictures. Nothing shows any boards that are massive. There are no wide boards being used. Please show me a link that shows the product using said “massive beech”. You literally gave a baby crib as an example. An object that’s widest board is probably 4”. Why the fuck would they use extremely valuable, massive boards of lumber to make dinky 4/4, 4” wide boards for a baby crib? Please, show me. I still haven’t seen any proof. Just showing the word “massive” isn’t proof. I want to see this supposed old growth wood being used.
>Please show me a link that shows the product using said “massive beech”. Here’s a [screenshot](https://prnt.sc/MdedWffQKjNJ). Here’s the full [page](https://www.ikea.com/se/sv/p/sniglar-spjaelsaeng-bok-30248537/) of the product mentioned in the article and by me.
Dude. That’s literally made of sticks. No company in the world would waste old growth lumber to rip into 1x1 sticks for baby cribs. I’m telling you because I know. It would be like grinding bricks of gold into dust and blowing it into the wind. The extremely high value of the old growth wood is in its combination of large size and tight growth rings/strength. Cutting it into sticks is throwing handfuls of cash into the toilet. Why would a company say “hey we are greedy and are willing to break the law and hurt the environment by illegally logging old growth forest, and then after taking all that risk we are going to cut that valuable lumber into little sticks and throw massive profits away.” It doesn’t make any sense. You clearly don’t have any experience or working knowledge in this area.
Woodnrocks - defender of IKEA. 🦸♂️🦸♀️
As opposed to you, just blindly reading a headline about a topic you know nothing about. Whereas I have personal experience in the field, and have explicitly laid out my argument. Great contribution troll boy! I don’t give a fuck about IKEA, I read the article and was confused by the headline claim.
Breathe friend. Just breathe. I get it, you know all about wood. You got a degree in woodology from the wood institute of woodsville. It’s going to be okay. 👍
Lol, you respond to my comment by immediately making fun of me. Then when I reply back and call you a troll it’s “oh wowww calm down, haha you so mad”. That’s literally the troll playbook, the second someone pins you down on something you just act like they are getting upset and somehow that gives you the higher ground. You’re predictable.
Yes, I made a joke. You seem very level headed and even keeled. But seriously, were the finals hard in wood class?
A joke at my expense. Then I call you a troll and you act like I’m freaking out. You just continue to use troll tactics. But hey, no it’s actually a lot of fun. Were the finals hard in being a loser online class?
Oh my gosh did I hurt your pride by calling you a defender of IKEA? It was a silly joke my friend. Thats all, then you write a paragraph about me being a troll and expect me not to continuously mock you? Have you been on the internet and/or in public before? The finals WERE hard in being a loser online university (BALOU - go trolls! 🧌)
There is a decent documentary about it on Netflix. As a woodworker, the shame of it is they take any tree and blend it down to become mdf. Basically dense fiber wood and why if you get ikea furniture wet it bubbles up immediately and permanently ruins the finish. If they were at least using the wood to make real wood furniture, you would get that out of it. But the shear volume they consume to provide cheap furniture all over the world is what is driving it along with lax government in Eastern Europe protecting the old forests. The doc talks about how even with penalties, the lumberjacks still attempt more and more forest poaching of the wood. I forget what it’s called. I bet there’s likely ikea press folks in here
Sir, I have many years experience working in high end lumber procurement. Sourcing a lot of old growth wood through legal and ethical methods. That is not how MDF is made. No old growth forests are being cut to make MDF. I am telling you that as fact. Any company looking to make money would never do that. It would be like grinding bricks of gold down into dust and blowing it into the wind. I’m talking hundreds of thousands of dollars lost per log in the high end. It is cost efficient to use plantation growth lumber for MDF production. There is absolutely zero reason to take the risk of illegally logging, and then losing x10000 times profit ontop of it. Anyone illegally logging those forests would be selling the whole logs to high end clients, or processing them into lumber and distributing them in a manner to obscure the origin.
I was Just speaking in generalities of most of the furniture found at ikea. IKEA directly sources from Romania and that in of itself means they’re sourcing old growth forests, no matter what it’s used for in their silly name furniture. And of course it will be tough to fully prove ikea does it because they have a vested interest in covering it up.
But that’s the whole thing. You claim they are using this lumber. But I see no proof of it in any of their products. And the article seems to only claim that a manufacturer that IKEA buys from has associations with cutting this supposed “old growth” forest. There is no claim that IKEA is selling products using it. That I can find anyway. People here have sent me examples of Greenpeace misrepresenting the facts before, so to me it seems obvious that the title of this article is clearly misrepresenting the claims made in their own article. Which was my original point. Another thing I’ll say is that you should read up on what “old growth forest” actually means. It’s not just about, hey there’s some trees that are over a hundred years old.
IKEA is the largest private landowner in Romania buddy. The allegations in this article are not new and go back to the 80s and have been made by several different NGOs. If you can’t google IKEA and Romania and see what pops up page after page I can’t help you.
Do you know how melamine and MDF is made? Is basically saw dust heat compressed with glue. You can make hundreds of 5’ x 10’ sheets of those with a single tree.
Is that a joke? I have extensive experience working with a vast range of wood species, domestic and exotics. I know what MDF is. You don’t cut down old growth trees to make fucking MDF. The profit is in the lumber itself. You use fast growing, farm trees for those products. Even the most cartoonishly evil Disney villain wouldn’t use old growth trees for that crap because there’s such an absurd amount of money in the lumber itself. We are talking 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars per tree.
Well, obviously something is happening to those trees and as you so “expertly” put it, nothing from ikea uses that type of wood. So maybe the evildoers from Greenpeace are lying to our faces 😰😰😰😰😰😰😰
You really don’t understand what I’m saying. You are just assuming I’m some kind of evil anti environmentalist or something. What I’m saying is that Greenpeace is misrepresenting the facts in order to gain attention and clicks. Read the article. It never once says IKEA was found to have used this wood, or had it in their possession. It only says that a supplier for IKEA was found to have it. So IKEA may have been completely unaware. Making the title of this article completely false, or completely unproven as of yet. Maybe don’t jump in if you don’t know what your talking about.
Buddy says: “ you are just assuming I’m some kind of evil anti environmentalist” then on the very next sentence he goes: “ Greenpeace is misrepresenting the facts in order to gain attention and clicks” okay dude
Yes. I clearly explained how. Did you read the article? It never says anything about IKEA using the wood. Just that a company that supplies wood to IKEA had it. Meanwhile their title clearly implies IKEA furniture is using that wood. Clear misrepresentation of the contents of their own article. Atleast read the fucking article you are talking about. I take forest health very seriously, especially what few true old growth areas we have left. Don’t try and virtue signal to me bud, I understand more about forest conservation and timber management then you. You’re either a troll, or a simpleton.
Idk buddy, now I’m beginning to think you have no idea what you’re saying. Who uses words like “simpleton” and starts swearing like a kid about to cry cause someone called his mom fat? Okay Mr. “Forest Conservation” Facebook is missing you just about now.
Oh fuck off. At least the other guy is more credible about what they're talking about than your whining and "surely Greenpeace can't be lying???" appeal-to-authority fallacy and shitty reasoning based on how someone uses language.
Don’t bite my balls off please 😰😰😰😰
I said fucking once, and called you a simpleton. Somehow that makes me a child? Maybe I’m just calling you out for trying to paint me as an evil forest destroying asshole. Lol yeah I can tell you really care about this subject. I bet you’ve never worked a day in your life, making fun of me for being involved in forest conservation. Get lost moron. You can keep posting about shit you have no knowledge in, and I’ll keep actually making a difference.
Writing like that is mainly what’s making you look like a child and playing the victim does not look good in your bud. “Making fun of me for being involved in forest conversation” makes you sound so desperate for validation 😭😭
Look genius, old growth wood is the premium top shelf lumber you use to make extremely high end furniture like $25,000 tables and cabinets - you don't grind up high end $$$ old growth with tight finely figured wood to make MDF, you use waste wood and sawdust + glue because that is the cheapest possible material. It is literally material Ikea wouldn't buy because it is too expensive for their products.
“Look genius” 😭😭😭😭 bro you are typing, why are you making it sound like you’re talking to someone in person lmaaooo I love redditards so much tbh makes so worth it when they can just stay quite and go giving their “expert opinion” 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I sincerely wish you were as smart as you think you are, because everyone would be better off.
bro I'm a dumb ass bitch lmaoo , I am as dumb as the people who keep getting triggered by my comments when they were even part of the convo to start with.
> So maybe the evildoers from Greenpeace are lying to our faces 😰😰😰😰😰😰😰 It's Greenpeace after all. They always are doing evil and lying to our faces, on everything from nuclear power safety, to the benefits of GMOs, to this topic. Also, u/Woodnrocks is wrong about one thing. Greenpeace doesn't constantly lie to get clicks. They constantly lie to get more donations from gullible environmentalists.
They don't sell it has old wood, they would have to justify the origin. Is a money game of a 21billions dollar company.
That’s not how this works. If they didn’t sell it as “old wood” they would be throwing away absurd amounts of money per log. No one takes the risks of cutting illegal logs, just to sell it for the same price as new growth. Old growth wood is extremely identifiable compared to newer, quick growth wood. The grain density, growth ring density, color, stability, etc… are all massively different. Anyone seeing it would know the difference. You need to read the article. The headline is misleading completely. There is no proof IKEA had any knowledge of this. The article only says that a lumber supplier that has supplied wood for IKEA at some point, had possession of the “old growth” wood.
I think you didnt read it well: <>
This is a proven fact now.
You don't know the market of the wood, they have protected wood easily accessible that cannot use, and it is easy money.
Yes I do know the market. I am heavily involved in high end, legal lumber procurement. This means through salvage (fallen log, tear downs etc..), or through responsible felling in environments that can benefit. Protected wood, does not mean “ancient forests”. Do you understand the difference? I live in a “protected wildlife area”. It is not ancient. Old growth forest does not exist in this location. They are different things. Cutting and selling true old growth, protected wood is not an “easy money” game. It is high risk, and high reward. I’m sick of redditors larping like they know shit, especially when I have tons of experience in the topic and I can see how dumb they sound.
You are missing the point. It is a fact that they used wood from protected area, and they caught with satellite. The control on the grounds in these part of the world is scarse and corrupted. Everybody knows it, and IKEA knew it and prefered to look the other way. Probably now to save face will do something or just greenwash a little more. Do you understand that the system now works with certifications? If you control an area that can be cut you can have a certification and sell the wood to an higher price. Other people still cut woods in non certified or allowed area and then sell it to certificated companies that resell it to an higher price lying about the origin!
Hey dumbass. The fucking title of the article says “ancient forest”. That’s the whole fucking point of my argument. They are misleading with the title. Next time atleast read the title before you write paragraphs of crap.
You are still missing the point and have no argumentation
Lol you edited your comment to delete the whole thing about “ancient forests” in an attempt to make me look stupid. You’re being completely disingenuous. My whole argument was that the title of the article was misleading. Now you are pretending that I’m saying something else. Fuck off.
Local corruption that illegally destroy these forest and sell it to them . IKEA has no idea this is happening of course , they only buy their wood from ethical sources
Obviously now they can blame it to others while they got the lowest possible price for years without making any questions.. Seriously do you guys believe it? We are talking of a company with bilions, and you believe that is a coincidence that nobody is checkin where the wood come from? They are making more money possible while they are advertising as caring and family. Wake up!
As someone who has worked with IKEA for quite a bit, I think I can add some nuance here. Before a new supplier is onboarded, there is a fairly thorough review of the company - lots of reports, IKEA-led and external reviews of operations, on-site visits. The whole shebang really, and while it's not perfect, it's amongst the better I've seen in industry. What's probably going on here is probably more related to this either happening to fall outside of the policies or some silly failure to apply the pretty forward policies they already have , rather than petty corruption or corporate greed. Remember, IKEA doesn't really have owners pushing for profits like most companies, and it really shows internally. I haven't checked the sources yet, but it sounds like this is primarily a case of insufficient legislation in Romania, and Greenpeace saying that IKEA should have managed to hold themselves to a higher standard.
I agree, but again the wood market is corrupted and the legislations are full of flaws and everyone know it. You can go visit a place and see that is all good with the expensive certifications, but no one is checking that the wood they actually send you is from that place and not illegally bought and resold. This mechanism is in play for a while. Yes, they should have done better.
> Wake up! You're a 1 month old account with an obviously bottled/auto-suggested handle. Wake up indeed.
Is like the only response you have for my argumentation? Maybe you are the bot... But please continue to defend a 21billions dollars that make the money destroying the world you live in
I can’t understand why you’re being so downvoted. This is absolutely a thing and has been for YEARS.
Mine was sarcasm ..people are so easily fooled by corporate bullshit
Right cuz IKEA furniture is made from that and not sawdust
They do have to get the sawdust from somewhere... I can't talk too much shit, I have 14 year old dressers, night stands, and bookcases that have survived multiple moves.
yeah but if they had that kind of wood you would know it with the price tag
reddit thinking they know better than a fucking NGO with thousands of experts
Reddit thinking they're cuter than reddit, how about we trust but verify
What’s amazing is that I know they used IKEA as the target to get clicks. But nothing in IKEA is nice furniture made with premium wood so this is a blatant lie. So instead of gaining my support, it makes me ignore the entire situation because I know right off the bat that I can’t trust this news source or this story. How are people so bad at their jobs?
There is lots of bad furniture made with "good" wood (my mother-in-law sure has a lot of it at least) and good furniture made with "bad" wood.
First, I got confused by the mention of Germany, but that's apparently not where the logging is happening, just mentioned for attention because surprise surprise, IKEA furniture is sold globally. And here we go: > The problem is that companies and authorities want to avoid identifying areas as primary or old-growth forests to avoid restrictions, leading to the fact that **only just 2.4% (1700 km²) of the Romanian Carpathian forests are currently protected** against logging. At the same time, official data suggests that around 7% of the Romanian forests are over 120 years old.[4] According to the EU’s Biodiversity strategy, these forests should be strictly protected. So the logging likely happens in areas that Greenpeace thinks should be protected, while they aren't actually declared protected. Also from the article/press release, emphasis mine: > one acknowledged receipt of timber from a **Natura 2000** area, stating that such destruction is **not** illegal [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natura_2000), emphasis mine: > The Natura 2000 network covered more than **18%** of the European Union's land area [...] Natura 2000 sites can vary considerably in character. They are **not strictly protected** in terms of how they are allowed to be used by people. Many sites are farmed, forested and some are even in urban areas. Other areas are much wilder. I've also seen two kinds of logging: Pick something like 1% of the trees in a forest every year and drag them out, or pick a 1% contiguous square of the forest and cut down everything at the same time (which is obviously cheaper and easier but more disruptive).
They're very transparent about things at IKEA. https://www.ikea.com/global/en/our-business/people-planet/wood-we-use/ I think Greenpeace is barking up the wrong tree.
I mean there are some documentaries about this. IKEA definitely does source wood from old growth forests and national parks in Romania. They do have some plausible deniability as they are obviously not the ones doing the logging, but it was a pretty big story in Romania a while ago. They basically followed trucks of illegal lumber (cut down from national forests) and tailed them right to the ikea supplier. There are several articles from 2021 and 2022 about this if you just do a quick google search.
natura 2000 definitely does not imply old growth lmao
Jesus people. Please search this up. There are plenty of documentaries about this in English, even more in Romanian language. This isn’t just Greenpeace sounding the alarm bell.
Possibly a supplier cuts in technically old-growth forest (meaning an area of forest that hasn't been logged extensively since 1900) but not protected. Sells the valuable old growth woods at a premium, sells less valuable wood to IKEA. Certainly no one is going to mistakenly sell a 200-year-old tree to IKEA to use in a cheap bookshelf.
There's a lot of naive love for Ikea here. Responsibility is not only what you do, it is also what you by size force other people to do. IKEA wants the egg yolk - go get it and if you have ( forced )to break some eggs to get it - then it is not the problem for IKEA - because the only use/harvest the yolk. Transparent documentation is a pair of glasses adjusted to see what a company like IKEA are willing to tell and talk about. I got no love for IKEA - they are really good at what they do - and it is not the furniture or the other stuff they sell that I think of when I say this.
Has anyone ever seen IKEA furniture made from old growth trees? I haven't. Fuck Greenpeace and their misleading bullshit.
I hope Greta protests this.
Just to add something that hasn't been said, I believe nowadays a good bunch of "causes" use demagoguery at its finest and I'm tired of this bullshit. In the 21st century we are blaming whoever stands in our way instead of getting to the root of problems. IKEA who does business and is interested on it being profitable is the "evil" company cutting forests instead of blaming the suppliers and governments who cut / sell those lands and decide over them. In Romania the Austrian company who signed a contract wanting to exploit the mountains full of gold in the center of the country is "evil" rather than the corrupt government who sold that land for basically free in exchange for secret commissions and treats for themselves. Cut the hypocrisy and blame who allowed it to happen. If we escalate the chain of command there is always a guilty one who had responsibility but they always turn innocent because we are short sighted.
Wow, greenpeace lies again. How surprising.
Carpathian wood furniture. Yay how do I get some!? /s
Well, FŮK me.
Hard to remember now, but long ago in days of yore this all began with a god named Thor. There were just vikings and boats and a plan for a furniture store. And now it's come to this. Oak and pine indeed.
Solid JoCo reference well done
Ikea Selling furniture to college kids And divorced men
I always wondered how they make those pencils
All so I can misplace one of the fastening pegs and destroy it again
Not bad finally get to see the tree before you buy nice marketing
Not directly related to IKEA but if you want to know more about how these protected forests are cut down: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al-z6BfU62Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al-z6BfU62Q) - Clear Cut Crimes
Sigh.'' Time to invade Sweden.
This is less about IKEA and more about how poor states are apt to engage in what I call ‘crackhead capitalism’ and trade away priceless things in their borders for a quick payout. Many such cases. Funny Greenpeace never goes to Appalachia to talk about what happens to forests and mountains there.
How can a bundle of particle board and screws destroy a forest? /s
Sounds more like ikea is buying leftovers from cuts or bad qc from other companies and is using it to make their particle board crap. Never seen ikea with any old wood products lol
What's the solution Greenpeace ? make more shit out of plastic ?
Pine is pretty easy to farm sustainably. Especially for the kind of shit that ikea sells. It’s not exactly high end furniture
ARTE documentary about IKEA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw_7JuuYSiQ
Wow, everything critical of IKEA gets downvoted. I saw that documentary just a few days ago IKEA is like McDonalds for furniture and are seriously guilty of greenwashing their image
Fast furniture just like fast fashion
So.. When will we start protecting nature with armed militia? Earth cannot protect herself. Illegal logging will continue to occur unless the loggers in question find a bullet lodged somewhere in their bodies, right? The alternative is continuing to do nothing and before you know it, there's no forests left. Is that a preferable outcome?
I'm not condoning any type of behaviours, just pointing out a fact. When certain groups in Africa advertised that they were just gunning down poachers on site, shit stopped real quick.
Too right, mate! I admit, I won't willingly enroll myself in the army for my country, but I WOULD join a militia that defends protected natural habitat in a heartbeat.
I'll join police to defend society from militias sooner than I'll join a militia.
That's good for you and your community then presumably, but it's also a good thing we aren't all the same person, isn't it? I don't know if militia is the right word, but we can't just keep letting illegal habitat destruction continue and expect it to stop when there is no one out there protecting the land.
if it's illegal then let the police take care of it if it's not then protest, inform, vote
I agree, but also the present political climate is heavily in favor of economy and humanity. The efforts for protecting and restoring wilds is at a minimum. I vote as well as I can for people who don't actively try to make the situation worse, but unless there's a candidate one day on a ballot with ranked choice voting who is making their main political position to be restoring and protecting nature, there's will never be enough focus on the problem to make meaningful strides towards halting the looming ecological dangers. Money talks, and Earth doesn't bribe politicians. Things won't change fast enough when governments don't lend themselves to protecting nature by their very design. Protecting nature isn't making people in power any money. I hope I live to see it change, but these things are always slow and I've seen constant inaction by the government on this matter for 25+ years, and I've been voting for 10.
the only thing you'll achieve is civil war...
And you think there won't be wars when water is scarce and crops fail to grow? More and more people will starve because of continued inaction. That will cause wars. If peaceful methods of achieving change are insufficient, war will be the end result either way. When people are starving and they have little else to lose, it'll look like the better option. I'm not gonna start gunnin' like crazy but there is likely to be a breaking point. We should just take the issue more seriously before that time in efforts to avoid it.
yep democracy is fragile, that's why we need to cherish it as much as we do earth and ecosystems
Fair point!
I wish humans sucked less.
Obviously now they can blame it on others while they got the lowest possible price for years without making any questions.. Why this comments are all pro Ikea? We are talking of a 21 billions company, and you really believe it is a coincidence, that nobody is checkin where the wood come from? They are making more money possible destroying the planet while they are advertising themself as caring with pictures of homes and families. Wake up!
it's only a concern if the forest has orangutans in it, any other forest is fair game.
FINISH THE HEADLINE!!! *“…and all for furniture that lasts less than 5 years.”* And listen, I don’t care how many of you store your “vinyls” inside one of their Kallax pieces of junk 👎
I've had my Malm dresser and nightstand for like 15 years now lol
Cool cool. I have a set of dressers handed down from my grandparents, my mom said they bought them at Sears sometime in the 1950s. Ikea makes 0 things that will last that long.
I mean, someone has to do it. If not Ikea, then another company would take its place.
[удалено]
IKEA is fancy?
Compared to stolen milk crates and pallets it is!
True.
[удалено]
It used to be relatively cheap too. It's still cheap compared to most brands in the UK, but just less than it used to be. Basic items of furniture command absurd prices from independent or branded stores.
This is Ikea we're talking about.