This is an amusing little scandal, but it seems to be only a procedural issue. Assuming that Google has some basic competence, it selected locations where it's ultimately possible to build data centers while complying with all legal requirements.
My guess is that the government will eventually find that all requirements have been satisfied and let the projects move on. But because this is now a controversial issue, someone with the standing will very likely file a complaint. Then the projects will be stuck in administrative courts for a year or two.
Logging a few hundred hectares was not a problem. Google could have done that without additional permits, if their intention was to plant a new forest afterwards. Environmental impact assessment was only necessary, because they intended to replace the forest with something else.
The key question is whether Google can comply with the law after the fact. If they complete the assessment and the government finds nothing that would prevent the construction of the data centers, the project can go on. Maybe there will be some minor sanctions, as well as some delays, as they didn't do things properly the first time. And even if there is something that prevents construction, Google can still probably comply by planting a new forest.
> without completing an environmental impact assessment (EIA).
Because they didn't follow the procedure of first completing the EIA, which Google is surely familiar with, with all of their other datacenters/construction (especially ANYTHING in California, which was detrimentally bad until recently [1]).
The environmental impact assessment requirement is a national law, and the national government is responsible for approving it. But since elections are coming and the issue has become controversial, the government coalition will happily ignore it and let administrators and judges sort it out. They have bigger things to worry about.
Its a pretty egregious procedural oversight if you want to chalk it up to that.
For sure this is being politicized, for example claiming that the area was reduced to sand due to an overheated data center market. But to clear the land before doing legally required environmental impact studies is a pretty obvious mistake, and frankly I'm not sure how you'd even have landed on a plan for land clearing before doing said study if its required. How would you know what areas to clear, for example?
Companies can do that, but I don't particularly like when people assume that is what happened because they don't trust the businesses in question and assume bad faith. If you take that path, sure you get to blame the guilty, but you also end up blaming the innocent and you have committed to a course where things can only ever get worse because you refuse to allow anyone a chance to improve.
In an instance like this I am all for condemning their actions if there is evidence that they incentivised malpractice by the subcontractor, or were negligent in oversight of the contractor, or they had some reason to expect that the permits they were seeking would not be granted.
Going ahead without the required permits does require punishment, even if it was just a cock up, that is expected and reasonable.
Suggesting that this is a planned form of noncompliance is a much more serious incident, requiring a much harsher penalty, but it also requires some evidence to say it occurred.
> I hope in vain that the powers that be are able to punish them in a way they will actually feel...
they have such an obscene amount of money that no fine would ever matter to them. Jail time would do the trick though. Billionaires and trillionaires can't buy days of their life back.
Considering prime minister Orpo has already been quite vocal about supporting these data centers (when concerns were raised about electricity prices rising which he assured they won't be) citing economic growth and job increase, I doubt Google receives any kind of hard hitting sanctions for this.
Obligatory reminder that Finland is the happiest country and is in fact considered by all metrics among the least corrupt nation in the world. /s
"Forest" is a polite way to refer to what appears to be a monoculture plantation. To restore the land properly it would probably be necessary to remove 80%+ of the trees to make space for seeding or planting a diverse range of other species. Possibly 100% if the monoculture species already planted is not endemic.
Google street view imagery of the site showing logging completed by June 2026 and logs waiting collection: [1]
Sentinel-2 L2A imagery from 2026-10-11 showing the logged area: [2]
Assuming that you're correct and it is a monoculture plantation, they did not remove trees to make space for planting other species, they removed trees to make space for a data center.
If the translation is correct, Finland converted about 14,000 hectares of forest in the 2010s per year (without replacement), and cut about 173,000 hectares per year in general (with replacement).
I suspect how much people think this was an honest mistake with their 330 hectares (apparently following the forestry rules but missing EIA) will depend on people's priors.
This is probably all native scots pine or norway spruce, as that is what almost all of finland's forests are, and they don't plant sitka spruce plantations there like they do in Ireland or other places in Europe.
That said, there's very little old growth forest in finland and this obviously is not old growth.
I'm curious though if you know, what other species you'd expect to see here if it was properly restored?
In parts of Australia there are designated "reference areas" which have a higher level of environmental protection than national parks. They are typically remote areas that humans do not visit and have not historically and directly disturbed. These areas are also typically less disturbed by other external factors such as seeding of non-endemic species by birds. Scientists use such areas as a reference to what other less protected areas of the environment would have looked like before human impact. In scientific journals you'll find surveys of such reference areas including the prevalence of different taxon, as well as surveys of national parks or other areas being compared.
I've tried to find similar for Finland. The closest I've found is [1] which maps "old forests" which are defined to be over 100 years old (not actually very old). The three examples [2], [3] and [4] are Google street view imagery of nearby "old forests" and all indicate a much higher biodiversity and natural planting than the site Google has cleared. The site Google has cleared and nearby forests are visible in overhead imagery as having a pattern of tree plantings (distinct rows/grid) and show visible disturbance for forestry trails (ground compaction), whereas the "old forest" sites don't have these patterns. The "old forest" sites also show variance in trunk diameters, greater separation between trunks, more forest floor diversity and more tree variety (both taxon and structure). Plantation forests have trees deliberately planted too close to each other to encourage upright growth habit, lower limbs are deliberately removed and trees thinned after some years, all to maximise the number of sawmill-ready trunks. Revegetation planting would look completely different to what occurred at the Google site.
Revegetation planting and ongoing management is also much more expensive to do correctly. It's a struggle to find success stories. Best examples likely involve aerial seeding and complex seed collection and preparation, as well as ongoing manual weed management and introduced species control for 20+ years. There is often a fair bit of complexity to simulating nature to make seeds viable--for example, refer to Przewalski's Horse case study where hoofed animals were reintroduced and found to be essential for embedding seeds at required depth and reshaping the terrain to support seed germination. More examples are water courses upstream having to be cleared of weeds first, introduced animals need to be excluded/culled, etc, etc.
> In parts of Australia there are designated "reference areas" which have a higher level of environmental protection than national parks. They are typically remote areas that humans do not visit and have not historically and directly disturbed.
> I've tried to find similar for Finland. The closest I've found is [1] which maps "old forests" which are defined to be over 100 years old (not actually very old).
The history of civilization in Finland is much longer than the history of civilization in Australia. You shouldn't expect to be able to find "areas that humans have not historically disturbed" in most parts of the world. Certainly not in parts of the world that can grow trees.
Living on land with care and stewardship as indigenous peoples often did is very different to clear-felling for agriculture or monoculture forestry, the strongest plausible interpretation would be that by "directly disturbed", the GP meant the latter.
I can tell you that this is, for better or worse, what a lot "forests" look like in Sweden (and I assume, Finland too). A large part of our forests are industriskog (industrial forest).
Great for the economy (in the short term), not great for biodiversity.
Either way, you need to complete the EIA. It'd probably show that this was, indeed, a good location for a DC. Not doing the assessment before starting to chop down the trees is the problem here, not that the forest is particularly ecologically valuable.
Finn here. Not really. You're allowed to log if you resow.
So this seems to be a calculated move: When permits pass, prep is done. Worth paying minor fines for jumping the gun. Permits don't pass, just resow. That's a well informed expected value calculation.
That's a bad calculation, if the risk model failed to account for a political scandal in a small country that's very proud of their tree plantations and deeply suspicious of megacaps. But even with that tail risk realizing the likely outcome is that permits pass and prep is done. People make some noise, you get some bad PR and pay more than anticipated. Might seem like not worth the costs in retrospect, but hardly a disaster.
'"Forest" is a polite way to refer to what appears to be a monoculture plantation.' That would mean that Europe almost has no Forest according to you and there's nothing worth protecting?
Pretty much yes, say Germany and Britain cut down almost all of the forests that were not too steep to farm on centuries ago, which make their cries to other parts of the world to stop deforestation pretty hypocritical.
What you call "monoculture plantation" looks just typical Finnish planted forest to me. I mean sure, it's not in its natural state, but I wouldn't call it a "monoculture plantation" either. Plenty of wildlife and species live in these forests. The species are endemic, non-endemic trees are only planted in cities, private property and such for their looks.
There are moose, bears, wolves, foxes, rabbits and so on living in these "monoculture plantations".
> More than 75% of Finland’s land area is covered with forest. [...] About 3 million hectares of Finnish forests are protected or under restricted use, which represents 13% of the total surface area of forests (forest land and low-productive forests). The area of protected forests fully excluded from fellings is 2.5 million hectares, which represents 10.8% of the total surface area of forest and low-productive forest land.
I think local governments should be regulating and zoning new data center construction in a way that forces them to rehabilitate old industrial brownfields. There’s plenty of land already spoiled by human activity that can be reused. No reason to be cleaning nature for a warehouse full of computers that could be built anywhere.
Because they want to move in and can afford it. Same reason that apartment complexes have to add greenspace or subsidized apartments as a condition of getting a zoning variance.
Maybe not a great example. Municipalities should fund public works projects themselves using sane taxation revenue instead of cryptically taxing private land improvement projects.
That's just what the poster above decided, not "the people" / legislation. Key words "I think" in the comment. Asking that person why they are going after datacenters specifically is a valid question.
yeah i was browsering the oneline shop and find out Nokia dont release smart phones anymore. they used to have several series with Anriod and i have one, it's pretty good.
High tech industry couldn't compete against the Chinese, the Ukraine War killed a huge chunk of export industries, aging population, successive governments shifting money from one welfare pocket to another, escalating unemployment eroding tax base and now when the money has ran out, aggressive austerity measures.
Also, earlier Nokia got sniped by Microsoft and profitable wood industries were decimated by transition from paper magazines (high quality, high value add paper) to digital (no paper) --> industry now makes pulp, which is low-value-add.
People keep making comments like this about Nokia, but is there really any chance they’d still exist as an independent phone/operating system maker if the Microsoft buyout didn’t occur?
I didn't even know Finland had a right-wing party. maybe to most people, the stereotype of Nordic countries like Finland is just high social welfare, left-wing, and freezing cold."
they gave them extra time to finish the dirty deeds
> the Finnish Licensing and Supervision Authority (LVV) said it had issued a notice to the company to “immediately suspend” – by 23 October at the latest
Fines are just there as a threat to make sure they're not behind on their (checks notes...what are they calling it these days again...oh that's right) PAC contributions.
I think it was their Siri. Apple Intelligence lags a lot behind competitors, and back during WWDC last year Craig made an announcement about how "Siri had fallen short of expectations".
These could be on the order of 300k trees, illegally cutting a tree in Germany could cost up to 50k euro, that sums up to 15B Euro. Bad math but it gives a perspective on the magnitude of not caring about the natural environment.
I'm of course against illegal logging, but in this case there was very little loss of the environment. These planted pine forests in the Nordics are not biodiversity hubs in any stretch of imagination. They do support life, but not much. You will generally not meet any animal there, except some birds perhaps if you're lucky. It would be another matter altogether if this was an old growth forest. This one is more like just a procedural blunder.
Does it really? I've been to mono forests that basically had one type of visible bug, maybe 2 kind of spiders and maybe a squirrel but definitely no birds (because of the lack of bugs)
Meanwhile the average urban area in Switzerland comes with many different types of plants and areas.
I see plenty of birds in these Finnish planted forests, and definitely lots of bugs too, though you can't see them most of the time. Squirrels, moose, foxes, bears, wolves, deer, all live in them. Blueberries, lingonberries and wide variety of mushroom too. Of course you don't see any of them from aerial pictures or Google Street view. You see the big trees.
Obviously a naturally formed forests would have even more biodiversity, but these Finnish industrial forests are by no means dead. Some areas are more lush than others, depending on the ground and whether there's lakes or rivers nearby. If the ground is good, other types of trees tend to spread naturally, in addition to whatever was planted.
How many hectares of forest did Tesla cut down to build the Brandenburg, Germany factory? And, did it make news headlines? No, it did not. This story is pure data center hysteria.
About three quarters of Finland is forest, the highest share in Europe. Cutting down a small area is blown out of proportions, they could of course plant trees to offset in another place. Put every datacenter on Earth together and the land would hold maybe 20 million trees, about 1 in 150,000 of the world’s trees, or half a day of global deforestation.
It is not really forest, but plantation, actively managed and quite low in nature values/diversity. There is a push from EU to conserve the last remaining primary forests in Finland, but it is being opposed by the government and industry.
A big part of that fight is setting up the criteria for primary forests, so I can't easily give you a percentage number of how much of Finland is forest. But not much.
This article seems like pretty typical Guardian clickbait and "data center hysteria". It isn't Google who is responsible; it is the primary contractor: Tuike Finland Oy.
Also, if this forest was being cut down to build an organic vegetable farm or preschool or petting zoo, would we be seeing the same headline? Not a chance in hell. This part is the most egregious reach to me:
> The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation said the sites had been reduced to “sand”
Cry me a river. Would you say the same if it wasn't a data center? And, is this land environmentally important or sensitive? Again, no information given; only hysteria.
It was economic forest without any conservative value. You are allows to cut down trees on your own land.
If you cut down more than 200 hectares you need to make a statement about effects for the environment. Google cut down 300 at Muhos.
There will be no notable effects on environment because the site is economic forest or junk land, unles such environmental effect is made up by government officials to slow down Google.
"Don't be evil" went away when the purchased Doubleclick advertising company completed hollowing out the old "Don't be evil" Google from the inside out.
As someone who's seen how this sausage is made in another jurisdction I assume what's going on here is Google or the builder got some sort of statement from some board to the tune of "oh well because you checked whatever boxes we will exercise our discretionary authority to waive this for you, the exact opposite of what how we'd behave if you were some uppity peasant seeking to develop some petty land". Naturally there are some who don't like this have probably complained to the next authority up who's putting some scrutiny on the situation and whatever approval they were given has been rescinded and now they gotta do it the hard expensive way.
Or it might be one of those cases where the discretionary BS you can be put through is so onerous and capricious that the cheapest way to get it done is to bulldoze first, let the threats fly and use whatever legal maneuvering that gets you to wind up with a more favorable venue (the higher up you go the more friendly to industry permitting authorities tend to become).
Most of the lost Amazon forest was coverted into agricultural land to raise cattle and grow soybeans (to later feed pigs). It had nothing to do with data centers.
We’re in the middle of the next technological revolution and not building is our best bet? You could’ve said that about the green revolution we should have left the fertilizer in the ground cause now we have 10 billion people and all the problems that come with it.
So what, if we don't invent the technology tomorrow we will next year. It's not like the world stops turning if innovation slows down a bit. In fact a lot of people think it's going too fast now. Even a lot of people in the industry.
And we shouldn't have made so unsustainably many people, I really don't understand why people are still fussing about birth rates when environmental crises are piling up (and social ones too like cost of living/housing)
I know this is like 2 hops off topic now, but... There's no shortage of people worldwide, it's just that particular countries have issues with low birth rates.
On topic, yes the datacenter growth can be slower.
It's typical greenwashing though. Plant a few trees so you don't have to feel bad about the energy use. But it's all short term monoculture forests they're planting. Not destroying the real forest we have left is the better option. But yeah that's hard, you can't claim that as a quick win and make a lot of money off of it.
These initiatives are so small that they don't make a dent in the actual problem and for every "green" kilowatt hour some other factory burns extra coal because there's no green capacity left.
All ecosia does is give people who are mildly environmentally conscious an excuse to not feel guilty, and making good money off it. It's just like the 2$ carbon offset fees on flights. No way that tiny amount actually offsets anything of course. It's just someone getting rich of absolving others' guilt.
As an executive of a company, I can think of no reason to remove that as a value unless of course (checks notes) you are condoning and encouraging evil.
Ok, it was moved to some place almost nobody sees it. Tbh I'm happy with that, cause it was a bad slogan. Anyone outside a very tight Google bubble saw it as something an evil company would obviously say.
That photo looks horrible. Of all places, why cut down a ton of trees to build a data center. I hope the trees were used to build housing for the homeless or something. Maybe a youth center at least?
I don’t know much about Findland, so maybe there are trees everywhere.
There indeed are trees everywhere, forest cover in Finland is 74%. If the land is not in use, it will turn into forest naturally, though such land is usually planted on purpose to speed up the growth. And then it will be logged, and regrown.
I assume locals likely won't be angry about the loss of the trees, but they will be angry about a megacorp skirting the regulations, as Finland is a very rules and regulations oriented country.
All this red tape just slows down innovation. There is too much of a compute shortage right now that we need to figure out how to accelerate datacenter build outs.
Is it really a shortage of chips and not datacenters? Nobody seems to accurately know this fact, just semiconductor companies saying were at future capacity for years.
It's a shortage of everything. Power, datacenters, chips, etc. If you don't see it now, just look at where estimates are projecting the demand in even a couple years.
I agree, and, want to point out this wasn't old growth forest. At least, none of the standing trees in the photos look like old growth. If it was, that would be a huge story, but it would have been very odd for Google to put a data center in old growth forest. Almost all of Finland is covered by managed/logged forests like this, so it's kind of inevitable if building a datacenter there that it is going to replace forest.
The same is true in much of the world actually, over half of the earth's surface was forested before humans started clearing it.
That does seem a bit dramatic. What Google did here, assuming the reporting is true, is absolutely bad but it isn't unprecedented. I'm not sure how clearing land for a development would be considered a new level of evil.
That's not the most evil thing that Google has been doing. Setting up a global surveillance network comes to mind. And algorithm based engagement on things like YouTube. They've also led the industry monetisation of personal data.
I think the world would be a much better place if Google and it's peers had never existed.
> Google said in a statement “we understand the concerns” and that it had “fallen short of our own high standards”.
But it wasn't their own high standards, it was a legal obligation that they neglected?
I hope in vain that the powers that be are able to punish them in a way they will actually feel...
This is an amusing little scandal, but it seems to be only a procedural issue. Assuming that Google has some basic competence, it selected locations where it's ultimately possible to build data centers while complying with all legal requirements.
My guess is that the government will eventually find that all requirements have been satisfied and let the projects move on. But because this is now a controversial issue, someone with the standing will very likely file a complaint. Then the projects will be stuck in administrative courts for a year or two.
> This is an amusing little scandal, but it seems to be only a procedural issue.
If you go out and illegally cut down a tree, that's not "only a procedural issue". They illegally logged 815 acres of forest.
Breaking the law is a procedural issue.
Logging a few hundred hectares was not a problem. Google could have done that without additional permits, if their intention was to plant a new forest afterwards. Environmental impact assessment was only necessary, because they intended to replace the forest with something else.
The key question is whether Google can comply with the law after the fact. If they complete the assessment and the government finds nothing that would prevent the construction of the data centers, the project can go on. Maybe there will be some minor sanctions, as well as some delays, as they didn't do things properly the first time. And even if there is something that prevents construction, Google can still probably comply by planting a new forest.
they illegally destroyed 815 acres of forest
> without completing an environmental impact assessment (EIA).
Because they didn't follow the procedure of first completing the EIA, which Google is surely familiar with, with all of their other datacenters/construction (especially ANYTHING in California, which was detrimentally bad until recently [1]).
[1] https://abc7news.com/post/gov-gavin-newsom-signs-new-bills-a...
be real, they will just pay off the local officials to pass zoning laws to make it all legal. As they have done across the states.
The environmental impact assessment requirement is a national law, and the national government is responsible for approving it. But since elections are coming and the issue has become controversial, the government coalition will happily ignore it and let administrators and judges sort it out. They have bigger things to worry about.
who is left at the EPA to review it?
The forest and Google datacenters in the article are not in the US.
Although we shouldn't forget that we can lose trees in the US in order to accommodate data centers too.
https://www.opb.org/article/2025/03/29/portland-general-elec...
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/chestnut-grove-...
Its a pretty egregious procedural oversight if you want to chalk it up to that.
For sure this is being politicized, for example claiming that the area was reduced to sand due to an overheated data center market. But to clear the land before doing legally required environmental impact studies is a pretty obvious mistake, and frankly I'm not sure how you'd even have landed on a plan for land clearing before doing said study if its required. How would you know what areas to clear, for example?
Yeah, that is not procedural oversight. That's simply not following the law, plain and simple.
It really reads as "We're sorry we got caught" in corpospeak.
They phrase it briefly like that for maximum coverage
Pose your question to them and they can say "sure if you need to finish our statement with...high standards to follow law... you do you"
Subject = our high standards
Predicate = whatever context you want to store here
The punishment will almost certainly fall on the subcontractor they contracted this work to who cut corners and should know better about local law.
Ah yes the Amazon model. Cover your ass with subcontractor to take the fall, and make them so dependent on you that they unquestionably follow orders.
That way you can evade all sorts of labour and environmental laws and if it blows up you just pop the contractor and find a new one.
Companies can do that, but I don't particularly like when people assume that is what happened because they don't trust the businesses in question and assume bad faith. If you take that path, sure you get to blame the guilty, but you also end up blaming the innocent and you have committed to a course where things can only ever get worse because you refuse to allow anyone a chance to improve.
In an instance like this I am all for condemning their actions if there is evidence that they incentivised malpractice by the subcontractor, or were negligent in oversight of the contractor, or they had some reason to expect that the permits they were seeking would not be granted.
Going ahead without the required permits does require punishment, even if it was just a cock up, that is expected and reasonable.
Suggesting that this is a planned form of noncompliance is a much more serious incident, requiring a much harsher penalty, but it also requires some evidence to say it occurred.
> I hope in vain that the powers that be are able to punish them in a way they will actually feel...
they have such an obscene amount of money that no fine would ever matter to them. Jail time would do the trick though. Billionaires and trillionaires can't buy days of their life back.
> are able to punish them
They will not.
Considering prime minister Orpo has already been quite vocal about supporting these data centers (when concerns were raised about electricity prices rising which he assured they won't be) citing economic growth and job increase, I doubt Google receives any kind of hard hitting sanctions for this.
Obligatory reminder that Finland is the happiest country and is in fact considered by all metrics among the least corrupt nation in the world. /s
There is no MOST or WORST or BEST anything. Its practically impossible to possibly know or judge who is the happiest or where is the best ice cream.
"Forest" is a polite way to refer to what appears to be a monoculture plantation. To restore the land properly it would probably be necessary to remove 80%+ of the trees to make space for seeding or planting a diverse range of other species. Possibly 100% if the monoculture species already planted is not endemic.
Google street view imagery of the site showing logging completed by June 2026 and logs waiting collection: [1]
Sentinel-2 L2A imagery from 2026-10-11 showing the logged area: [2]
[1] https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/91500+Tahvola,+Finland/...
[2] https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/?zoom=15&lat=64.8369...
Assuming that you're correct and it is a monoculture plantation, they did not remove trees to make space for planting other species, they removed trees to make space for a data center.
If the translation is correct, Finland converted about 14,000 hectares of forest in the 2010s per year (without replacement), and cut about 173,000 hectares per year in general (with replacement).
I suspect how much people think this was an honest mistake with their 330 hectares (apparently following the forestry rules but missing EIA) will depend on people's priors.
1. https://ilmastopaneeli.fi/hallinta/wp-content/uploads/2025/1...
This is probably all native scots pine or norway spruce, as that is what almost all of finland's forests are, and they don't plant sitka spruce plantations there like they do in Ireland or other places in Europe.
That said, there's very little old growth forest in finland and this obviously is not old growth.
I'm curious though if you know, what other species you'd expect to see here if it was properly restored?
In parts of Australia there are designated "reference areas" which have a higher level of environmental protection than national parks. They are typically remote areas that humans do not visit and have not historically and directly disturbed. These areas are also typically less disturbed by other external factors such as seeding of non-endemic species by birds. Scientists use such areas as a reference to what other less protected areas of the environment would have looked like before human impact. In scientific journals you'll find surveys of such reference areas including the prevalence of different taxon, as well as surveys of national parks or other areas being compared.
I've tried to find similar for Finland. The closest I've found is [1] which maps "old forests" which are defined to be over 100 years old (not actually very old). The three examples [2], [3] and [4] are Google street view imagery of nearby "old forests" and all indicate a much higher biodiversity and natural planting than the site Google has cleared. The site Google has cleared and nearby forests are visible in overhead imagery as having a pattern of tree plantings (distinct rows/grid) and show visible disturbance for forestry trails (ground compaction), whereas the "old forest" sites don't have these patterns. The "old forest" sites also show variance in trunk diameters, greater separation between trunks, more forest floor diversity and more tree variety (both taxon and structure). Plantation forests have trees deliberately planted too close to each other to encourage upright growth habit, lower limbs are deliberately removed and trees thinned after some years, all to maximise the number of sawmill-ready trunks. Revegetation planting would look completely different to what occurred at the Google site.
Revegetation planting and ongoing management is also much more expensive to do correctly. It's a struggle to find success stories. Best examples likely involve aerial seeding and complex seed collection and preparation, as well as ongoing manual weed management and introduced species control for 20+ years. There is often a fair bit of complexity to simulating nature to make seeds viable--for example, refer to Przewalski's Horse case study where hoofed animals were reintroduced and found to be essential for embedding seeds at required depth and reshaping the terrain to support seed germination. More examples are water courses upstream having to be cleared of weeds first, introduced animals need to be excluded/culled, etc, etc.
[1] https://luontovahti.fi/vanhojametsia -- select Pohjois-Pohjanmaa as the area then zoom in near Muhos.
[2] https://maps.app.goo.gl/wncKi2JMxuPXC7Bc7
[3] https://maps.app.goo.gl/BX2ta5dQmihSgVAM6
[4] https://maps.app.goo.gl/4W3WvR5tH9wroVna7
> In parts of Australia there are designated "reference areas" which have a higher level of environmental protection than national parks. They are typically remote areas that humans do not visit and have not historically and directly disturbed.
> I've tried to find similar for Finland. The closest I've found is [1] which maps "old forests" which are defined to be over 100 years old (not actually very old).
The history of civilization in Finland is much longer than the history of civilization in Australia. You shouldn't expect to be able to find "areas that humans have not historically disturbed" in most parts of the world. Certainly not in parts of the world that can grow trees.
Living on land with care and stewardship as indigenous peoples often did is very different to clear-felling for agriculture or monoculture forestry, the strongest plausible interpretation would be that by "directly disturbed", the GP meant the latter.
Actually the first Australians arrived here before any humans arrived in Europe.
I can tell you that this is, for better or worse, what a lot "forests" look like in Sweden (and I assume, Finland too). A large part of our forests are industriskog (industrial forest).
Great for the economy (in the short term), not great for biodiversity.
This one was probably planted up to 60 years ago after the previous felling. The biodiversity requirements surely were not any better back then.
Swede here too.
It's extremely depressing driving around in Swedens countryside now. There are little to no forests, it's all just tree plantations.
It is so sad, same in Finland, just one huge plantation.
Still better than most of Europe. Tree plantation has more biodiversity than French or German field growing wheat.
Either way, you need to complete the EIA. It'd probably show that this was, indeed, a good location for a DC. Not doing the assessment before starting to chop down the trees is the problem here, not that the forest is particularly ecologically valuable.
Finn here. Not really. You're allowed to log if you resow.
So this seems to be a calculated move: When permits pass, prep is done. Worth paying minor fines for jumping the gun. Permits don't pass, just resow. That's a well informed expected value calculation.
That's a bad calculation, if the risk model failed to account for a political scandal in a small country that's very proud of their tree plantations and deeply suspicious of megacaps. But even with that tail risk realizing the likely outcome is that permits pass and prep is done. People make some noise, you get some bad PR and pay more than anticipated. Might seem like not worth the costs in retrospect, but hardly a disaster.
'"Forest" is a polite way to refer to what appears to be a monoculture plantation.' That would mean that Europe almost has no Forest according to you and there's nothing worth protecting?
There is, but the amount of primary forests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest ) is much lower than the amount of plantations
That's my point ;)
Pretty much yes, say Germany and Britain cut down almost all of the forests that were not too steep to farm on centuries ago, which make their cries to other parts of the world to stop deforestation pretty hypocritical.
Because they can't learn out of their own lessons? That's not hypocrisy
Illegal is illegal, it doesn't mater what google street view looks like.
What you call "monoculture plantation" looks just typical Finnish planted forest to me. I mean sure, it's not in its natural state, but I wouldn't call it a "monoculture plantation" either. Plenty of wildlife and species live in these forests. The species are endemic, non-endemic trees are only planted in cities, private property and such for their looks.
There are moose, bears, wolves, foxes, rabbits and so on living in these "monoculture plantations".
So this was like a tree farm, planted for the purpose of logging? I know we have areas like that here in the PNW of the US, don't know about Finland.
Monoculture plantation does not imply "planted for the purpose of logging". It implies originally planted for some reason.
For trees it definitely does imply "planted for the purpose of logging". That's more than 95% of what people want from trees.
Finland is 75% covered with forrest out of which 97% is grown for the purpose of logging. This AI slop research, but it’s in the ballpark.
From the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry[0]:
> More than 75% of Finland’s land area is covered with forest. [...] About 3 million hectares of Finnish forests are protected or under restricted use, which represents 13% of the total surface area of forests (forest land and low-productive forests). The area of protected forests fully excluded from fellings is 2.5 million hectares, which represents 10.8% of the total surface area of forest and low-productive forest land.
[0] https://mmm.fi/en/forests/forestry/forest-resources
I think local governments should be regulating and zoning new data center construction in a way that forces them to rehabilitate old industrial brownfields. There’s plenty of land already spoiled by human activity that can be reused. No reason to be cleaning nature for a warehouse full of computers that could be built anywhere.
I like this thinking. But also: it's clear this is a monoculture wood crop, not a "forest".
So in fact, this IS brownfield development: changing one industrial land use (forest products) into another one.
Doesn't mean they can't do the paperwork correctly tho.
Why should that responsibility fall on data centers, specifically?
Because they want to move in and can afford it. Same reason that apartment complexes have to add greenspace or subsidized apartments as a condition of getting a zoning variance.
Maybe not a great example. Municipalities should fund public works projects themselves using sane taxation revenue instead of cryptically taxing private land improvement projects.
Because in a democratic society the people can decide who is responsible for what, that's the price of admission you pay to live in such a society.
That's just what the poster above decided, not "the people" / legislation. Key words "I think" in the comment. Asking that person why they are going after datacenters specifically is a valid question.
There is a "good" answer; data centers are both unpopular and temporarily rolling in cash, making them attractive targets for punitive taxation.
I'm one of those people and I don't understand why we would single out data centers, a largely clean industry, to clean up dirty, industrial areas.
Finland is struggling and are desperate, they will allow anything at this point to get money in and jobs.
what happend to Finland?
Their economy has been struggling for a while, having the highest unemployment rate in the EU and a large deficit.
Among other things, this has been caused by the downfall of Nokia and the paper industry as well as the collapse of trade and tourism with Russia.
> downfall of Nokia
yeah i was browsering the oneline shop and find out Nokia dont release smart phones anymore. they used to have several series with Anriod and i have one, it's pretty good.
> highest unemployment rate in the EU
i guess it's a universal problem.
High tech industry couldn't compete against the Chinese, the Ukraine War killed a huge chunk of export industries, aging population, successive governments shifting money from one welfare pocket to another, escalating unemployment eroding tax base and now when the money has ran out, aggressive austerity measures.
sounds like china except the ukrine war part and the chinese compete part...
Neoliberalism and right-wing austerity.
Also, earlier Nokia got sniped by Microsoft and profitable wood industries were decimated by transition from paper magazines (high quality, high value add paper) to digital (no paper) --> industry now makes pulp, which is low-value-add.
People keep making comments like this about Nokia, but is there really any chance they’d still exist as an independent phone/operating system maker if the Microsoft buyout didn’t occur?
I didn't even know Finland had a right-wing party. maybe to most people, the stereotype of Nordic countries like Finland is just high social welfare, left-wing, and freezing cold."
> it would consider enforcement proceedings and a fine
Oh man they are going to consider a fine, that would probably be barely an inconvenience to google.
they gave them extra time to finish the dirty deeds
> the Finnish Licensing and Supervision Authority (LVV) said it had issued a notice to the company to “immediately suspend” – by 23 October at the latest
Fines are just there as a threat to make sure they're not behind on their (checks notes...what are they calling it these days again...oh that's right) PAC contributions.
> Google said in a statement “we understand the concerns” and that it had “fallen short of our own high standards”.
Apple said the same rhetorical non-apology apologetically, recently... about something??
I think it was their Siri. Apple Intelligence lags a lot behind competitors, and back during WWDC last year Craig made an announcement about how "Siri had fallen short of expectations".
Executives were the world's first slop slingers even before LLMs. No wonder they got infatuated so easily.
> Apple said the same rhetorical non-apology apologetically, recently... about something??
Entirely possible they were advised by the same crisis management firm like FGS Global or Brunswick Group.
There is a whole giant industry around pretending to be sorry effectively.
These could be on the order of 300k trees, illegally cutting a tree in Germany could cost up to 50k euro, that sums up to 15B Euro. Bad math but it gives a perspective on the magnitude of not caring about the natural environment.
So like a days revenue for Google at an incalculable loss for the environment and living things ?
I'm of course against illegal logging, but in this case there was very little loss of the environment. These planted pine forests in the Nordics are not biodiversity hubs in any stretch of imagination. They do support life, but not much. You will generally not meet any animal there, except some birds perhaps if you're lucky. It would be another matter altogether if this was an old growth forest. This one is more like just a procedural blunder.
True, again,
Not that a data center would be better but calling a human made mono plantation a forest also seems a bit off.
That mono plantation still has way more biodiversity than your average agricultural or urban area.
Does it really? I've been to mono forests that basically had one type of visible bug, maybe 2 kind of spiders and maybe a squirrel but definitely no birds (because of the lack of bugs)
Meanwhile the average urban area in Switzerland comes with many different types of plants and areas.
I see plenty of birds in these Finnish planted forests, and definitely lots of bugs too, though you can't see them most of the time. Squirrels, moose, foxes, bears, wolves, deer, all live in them. Blueberries, lingonberries and wide variety of mushroom too. Of course you don't see any of them from aerial pictures or Google Street view. You see the big trees.
Obviously a naturally formed forests would have even more biodiversity, but these Finnish industrial forests are by no means dead. Some areas are more lush than others, depending on the ground and whether there's lakes or rivers nearby. If the ground is good, other types of trees tend to spread naturally, in addition to whatever was planted.
Google’s web page about the Muhos data center referenced in the article: https://datacenters.google/locations/muhos/
Ugly. They had the resources to make it beautiful and part of the environment instead they bulldozed it
Founders need to speak on this. If they've got time to get in the weeds on gemini, they've got time for this
Don’t be evil, unless there is billions of dollars involved
- Fell 330 hectares of forest for Data Center 1
- Fell 200 hectares of forest for Data Center 2
How many hectares of forest did Tesla cut down to build the Brandenburg, Germany factory? And, did it make news headlines? No, it did not. This story is pure data center hysteria.
Don't be evil until you get rich. Then you don't know what "evil" means anymore.
About three quarters of Finland is forest, the highest share in Europe. Cutting down a small area is blown out of proportions, they could of course plant trees to offset in another place. Put every datacenter on Earth together and the land would hold maybe 20 million trees, about 1 in 150,000 of the world’s trees, or half a day of global deforestation.
It is not really forest, but plantation, actively managed and quite low in nature values/diversity. There is a push from EU to conserve the last remaining primary forests in Finland, but it is being opposed by the government and industry.
A big part of that fight is setting up the criteria for primary forests, so I can't easily give you a percentage number of how much of Finland is forest. But not much.
That's what they say every time they cut a tree in the Amazon, too.
It's probably just a formality.
Title is: Google told to halt work on datacentres in Finland over environmental concerns
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49968324
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49982364
This article seems like pretty typical Guardian clickbait and "data center hysteria". It isn't Google who is responsible; it is the primary contractor: Tuike Finland Oy.
Also, if this forest was being cut down to build an organic vegetable farm or preschool or petting zoo, would we be seeing the same headline? Not a chance in hell. This part is the most egregious reach to me:
Cry me a river. Would you say the same if it wasn't a data center? And, is this land environmentally important or sensitive? Again, no information given; only hysteria.It was economic forest without any conservative value. You are allows to cut down trees on your own land.
If you cut down more than 200 hectares you need to make a statement about effects for the environment. Google cut down 300 at Muhos.
There will be no notable effects on environment because the site is economic forest or junk land, unles such environmental effect is made up by government officials to slow down Google.
How many preschools and petting zoos could you put on 200 hectares?
Big tech is the new O&G
What happened to „don’t be evil“?
"Don't be evil" went away when the purchased Doubleclick advertising company completed hollowing out the old "Don't be evil" Google from the inside out.
This kind of behavior has a scent of oligarchy..
*illegally
Seems this is becoming a frequent thing, all over:
"One of America’s Last Chestnut Groves Is About to Be Destroyed for a Data Center"
https://www.gadgetreview.com/one-of-americas-last-chestnut-g...
As someone who's seen how this sausage is made in another jurisdction I assume what's going on here is Google or the builder got some sort of statement from some board to the tune of "oh well because you checked whatever boxes we will exercise our discretionary authority to waive this for you, the exact opposite of what how we'd behave if you were some uppity peasant seeking to develop some petty land". Naturally there are some who don't like this have probably complained to the next authority up who's putting some scrutiny on the situation and whatever approval they were given has been rescinded and now they gotta do it the hard expensive way.
Or it might be one of those cases where the discretionary BS you can be put through is so onerous and capricious that the cheapest way to get it done is to bulldoze first, let the threats fly and use whatever legal maneuvering that gets you to wind up with a more favorable venue (the higher up you go the more friendly to industry permitting authorities tend to become).
It's better to pay a fine than to ask for permission and get turned down? yeah, probably.
Better for who?
It's certainly not better for you and me that Google is able to do whatever they want at the cost of a fine and nothing more
For reference, 330 hectares is 0.001% of Finland's forest cover.
Which is enormous. Doing this for ten datacenters would be 0.01%, etc.
This is essentially how 20% of the Amazon rainforest was completely destroyed, with up to another 33% seriously degraded.
Most of the lost Amazon forest was coverted into agricultural land to raise cattle and grow soybeans (to later feed pigs). It had nothing to do with data centers.
Imagine being in the thick of a global data center controversy and thinking this is a good idea
> If Google does not comply, IVV said it would consider enforcement proceedings and a fine.
Ah. A fine. That'll teach them.
(No wonder they ignored you.)
People sure love to hate datacenters. what we should build instead (or is it where?)
The answer can also be not building something. Its not like we have a set quota of building stuff that has to be allocated one way or another.
We’re in the middle of the next technological revolution and not building is our best bet? You could’ve said that about the green revolution we should have left the fertilizer in the ground cause now we have 10 billion people and all the problems that come with it.
So what, if we don't invent the technology tomorrow we will next year. It's not like the world stops turning if innovation slows down a bit. In fact a lot of people think it's going too fast now. Even a lot of people in the industry.
And we shouldn't have made so unsustainably many people, I really don't understand why people are still fussing about birth rates when environmental crises are piling up (and social ones too like cost of living/housing)
I know this is like 2 hops off topic now, but... There's no shortage of people worldwide, it's just that particular countries have issues with low birth rates.
On topic, yes the datacenter growth can be slower.
There is Ecosia, apparently. I don't recall which trackers (crawlers) it uses
It uses Bing.
It's typical greenwashing though. Plant a few trees so you don't have to feel bad about the energy use. But it's all short term monoculture forests they're planting. Not destroying the real forest we have left is the better option. But yeah that's hard, you can't claim that as a quick win and make a lot of money off of it.
These initiatives are so small that they don't make a dent in the actual problem and for every "green" kilowatt hour some other factory burns extra coal because there's no green capacity left.
All ecosia does is give people who are mildly environmentally conscious an excuse to not feel guilty, and making good money off it. It's just like the 2$ carbon offset fees on flights. No way that tiny amount actually offsets anything of course. It's just someone getting rich of absolving others' guilt.
When should we expect our corporate overlords to block out the sun just to fuck with us? [1]
[1] https://youtu.be/L3LbxDZRgA4
I hate Google as much as th next guy, but they hired a firm to handle "stuff", and the firm borked this.
I'd like to know what really happened.
Do no evil, right?
Don't be evil.
"Do no evil" is a functionally impossible standard. Subtle difference but it matters.
As an executive of a company, I can think of no reason to remove that as a value unless of course (checks notes) you are condoning and encouraging evil.
It wasn't removed. Common misconception; it got moved.
https://abc.xyz/investor/board-and-governance/google-code-of...
Search the page for the phrase.
Ok, it was moved to some place almost nobody sees it. Tbh I'm happy with that, cause it was a bad slogan. Anyone outside a very tight Google bubble saw it as something an evil company would obviously say.
"We're not evil" - Larry Pagerank and Tim Apple
That photo looks horrible. Of all places, why cut down a ton of trees to build a data center. I hope the trees were used to build housing for the homeless or something. Maybe a youth center at least?
I don’t know much about Findland, so maybe there are trees everywhere.
There indeed are trees everywhere, forest cover in Finland is 74%. If the land is not in use, it will turn into forest naturally, though such land is usually planted on purpose to speed up the growth. And then it will be logged, and regrown.
I assume locals likely won't be angry about the loss of the trees, but they will be angry about a megacorp skirting the regulations, as Finland is a very rules and regulations oriented country.
Fuck Google, seriously. Avoid as much as possible.
All this red tape just slows down innovation. There is too much of a compute shortage right now that we need to figure out how to accelerate datacenter build outs.
The computer shortage is about chips, which building datacenters doesn't help with
Is it really a shortage of chips and not datacenters? Nobody seems to accurately know this fact, just semiconductor companies saying were at future capacity for years.
It's a shortage of everything. Power, datacenters, chips, etc. If you don't see it now, just look at where estimates are projecting the demand in even a couple years.
If this is indicative of how people are actually thinking in the tech industry these days, then it's doomed. It will devour itself.
Old growth forest don't just come back.
I agree, and, want to point out this wasn't old growth forest. At least, none of the standing trees in the photos look like old growth. If it was, that would be a huge story, but it would have been very odd for Google to put a data center in old growth forest. Almost all of Finland is covered by managed/logged forests like this, so it's kind of inevitable if building a datacenter there that it is going to replace forest.
The same is true in much of the world actually, over half of the earth's surface was forested before humans started clearing it.
There's a shortage of something but I don't think it's compute.
To no one's surprise Google has gone from 'Do no evil' to 'Do all the evil, develop new levels of evil and then do that as well'
That does seem a bit dramatic. What Google did here, assuming the reporting is true, is absolutely bad but it isn't unprecedented. I'm not sure how clearing land for a development would be considered a new level of evil.
That's not the most evil thing that Google has been doing. Setting up a global surveillance network comes to mind. And algorithm based engagement on things like YouTube. They've also led the industry monetisation of personal data.
I think the world would be a much better place if Google and it's peers had never existed.