A headline that's carefully worded to be both accurate and put IKEA in the spotlight, even though they are among the more innocent parties here. Obviously the blame goes to the loggers, the furniture companies taking delivery of this wood and turning it into furniture, and the government that allows this and seems to be handing out permits for it. But perhaps Greenpeace is right that IKEA is the party most susceptible to the pressure and reputational damage, and thus the party most likely to end this (even if it reaches quite far back in their supply chain)
Some context for Europe.
>Forest area has increased by 9% since 1990, although the rate of expansion is slowing down
Destroying century old forests to replant rows of fast growing trees boost that percentage but absolutely decimates the ecosystem. But let's keep looking at numbers and clap
The question of total forest area and amount of "old-growth" forest are very different. The second is impossible to recreate on the scale of a human lifetime, or even many generations.
A tree plantation close cut every 30 years, usually with huge phyto treatments in between to kill everything, is not remotely the same thing as an old growth forest.
Would consider taking this seriously if it wasn’t greenpeace
Greenpeace has been responsible for much habitat destruction because Greenpeace has lobbied for more coal mining and oil extraction over nuclear power.
I think it's important to see what they say but also see it in context of their history.