If it was done illegally, it shouldn’t have been done. But I wanted some numbers to put this in perspective.
Forest loss in Finland has averaged about 243,000 hectares per year in recent years through 2025
Finland has 20.3 million to 26.3 million hectares of forestry and forest land depending on the classification used.
The United States has a gross forest loss of about 3 million acres per year, which is largely offset by 2.6 million acres of non-forest-to-forest conversion.
Brazil cleared 985,000 hectares of forest last year.
India approved the diversion of 26,858 hectares of forest last year.
There are a lot of entities clearing lots of forest every day. Interesting that this one makes news.
Finland has a lot of people who care about forest and Finland needs to pay fines for EU if they don't have enough forest to suck CO2 from the air.
Google cut corners here, and didn't ask for the needed permissions. And the prime minister doesn't want to show his conversation with Google regarding this.
People are really pissed.
Edit: and the electricity prices are going up due to these data centers. And the profits from them don't stay in Finland, but go to American corporations. There should be Finnish data centers owned by Finns instead of having Google to take the cheap electricity and taking profits out.
Same thing with data centres in Norway. We're planning to waste heaps of our renewable energy on generating profits for a small cabal of assholes in SV. For what? Luckily there's been more political pushback against it here recently, but it's so tame. Just for once I'd like to see some conviction. Pause all ongoing constructions, and launch corruption probes into all the local politicians that pushed this stuff through. I bet there's lots of corruption there. On a national level, we don't have corruption on anything near the systemic scale you see in the US. Some bad apples, and lots of mole hills made into mountains by the press, but nothing like the US where it seems like most of congress is pretty much openly corrupt.
Local politicians though? Oh boy. Seems like every time there's some ongoing project in a smaller municipality involving commercial exploitation of natural resources(like undeveloped land, minerals, hydropower capacity, etc) there's a mayor and/or municipal council members who profit from it financially or otherwise. They have shares/board seats in a holding company owning the land, local contractors, etc. Seems like this is very widespread, and rarely leads to serious consequences, and even when it does, it happens so late that the project is already built, or so far underway it doesn't get stopped. Shit pisses me off.
I'm sure data centres are no different. Because I can't imagine a cost-benefit analysis of them that makes any sense from the point of view of the local community.
>generating profits for a small cabal of assholes in SV.
People say that, but users are the ones capturing most if not almost all of the profit.
You don't cut Anthropic a check every time a new user signs up on your platform. You pay them a small slice of the revenue that their models generate for you.
Like... the town where the Google datacenter goes gets like some paved bike road from Google who "takes care of the community". Price tag around the profits of less than an hour of the GPU time in that datacenter.
You know those companies are publicly owned and big % of American public owns shares in them?
Additionally Google employs some 100k people in US and almost as many in Europe.
Those are mostly very good jobs as well.
The whole anti-datacenters sentiments is stupid but "profits go to a handful of Americans" is just pants of fire kind of take.
You reminded me of something. I heard in the Czech Republic when communism ended, the state owned industries became owned by the public. Every citizen received a share.
I wonder if we're going to need something similar when AI nukes the economy.
It worked that way in Russia too. Some people managed to quickly consolidate those shares by exploiting the economic hardship of the people caused by the fall of the USSR by hoovering up those shares for Kopecks on the Rubel, and that's where the current day oligarchy was formed.
No. Nothing to do with current criminal oligarchs, that are consolidating businesses by robbing owners of companies by overtaking their business with force and access to state and Putin. Like it was with conflict with division of Wildberies, when owner had to cooperate with Chechen mafia so her ex-husband would not have robbed her of her business.
Hodorkovsky became oligarch, because he represented Western investors in very profitable oil industry, that is basically what Russia was able to offer to the world, as most of factories from Soviet times were not usable in market economy - nobody wanted what they produced.
That is the reason why many people were having hardships in 1990ies, because they had no job and no money to exist. Only in times of Putin Russia had influx of foreign money from oil and gas, which was redistributed to other people as well. But everything is fleeting in Russia.
The transition from communism to capitalism was hardly as rosy as people in the West like to think.
Of course, how this unfolded varied. For example, unlike the chaotic Russian privatization that created a class of oligarchs, the transition in places like Poland favored a network of well-placed insiders, a highly structured network of intelligence officers (military, civilian), state managers, and flexible communist party elites, who - by controlling information, intelligence networks, and the liquidation apparatus - effectively laundered their authoritarian political privileges into financial dominance.
Yes. Should also cover what happened in East Germany when the wall went down. And people are now somehow surprised when everybody's kind of pissed outside of the few big cities.
There was a West Berlin bunch of real estate tycoons that got wind the wall was about to fall and they went across and started buying property left, right and center. They made billions on that, effectively owning the heart of Berlin post unification.
Funny story: I once got arrested at Checkpoint Charlie :)
Here some pics from those empty skyscrapers that are completely missing all the walls and the scaffolding's been gathering rust for years. And all the court cases for the people who bought the "luxury apartments" that never realized.
I'm always surprised that the topography of terror exhibition in Berlin misses this part of the German history. Nazi's and communists are presented, but the robber barons who bought all the real estate don't get a presentation.
Right, I think if we all had the same transparency, regulatory oversight, and involved electorate, we'd be as concerned with the other massive logging projects around the world.
I'm glad this one is getting attention, though. May the Finnish people show us how we can get it right.
Oh the logging projects also get a LOT of attention. It's just that the current government is center-right / far right, and they just let the logging to continue no matter the sanctions from the EU.
There are a lot of people who are against this, and protest against this. Looking at the polls, seems that it will change in the next elections, like a lot.
This is the kind of "paperwork maximal" nonsense that is killing Europe.
Google DID apply for the right permissions, and they even had a consultant on the ground with years of experience who was supposed to navigate these complexities ... and even WITH all that, you get the result of idiots saying "Google BYPASSED OUR LAWS!!!!!"
Sit in the shoes of a Google lawyer trying to navigate all of this nonsense. Why is there not one government entity telling Google, okay, you need to do XYZ to do this. Instead, they got the ok from several Finnish agencies to go ahead. And then, even as a surprise to the exiting Finnish government agencies they were working with, yet ANOTHER agency shows up and says OH YOU DIDNT DO ABCDEFGHIJK steps.
'Kovan viikon ilta' (the Finnish weekly late night show) said Google had filed for deforestation requests that were small enough they did not warrant an environmental impact review. But it turned out there were quite a few small, adjacent deforestation requests so yeah it was quite certainly illegal :D
That the outrage doesn't seem to extend to the other companies clearing the other 242,700 acres in Finland
[edit] Request for source on illegality of the clearing (article states Google claims it was legal - I don't see where it says anyone is refuting that)
>Request for source on illegality [...] I don't see where it says anyone is refuting that
the regulators are the ones refuting google's claims. the headline opens with:
"Finland's regulator says the environmental review came too late"
and the second paragraph of the linked article says:
"Google was apparently so eager to build its new data center infrastructure in Finland that it began bulldozing large swaths of forest __before the required environmental review of the full plan was complete__."
typically, doing something before the environmental review gives you a notice to proceed is illegal.
> If it was illegal them I’m sure the state prosecutors will take care of it.
In Finland prosecutors are not involved in most of the illegal things, they are only involved in criminal matters (and in some cases civil compensation claims which are linked to criminal case). Various regulators/authorities are the ones who enforce civil side.
In many cases the penalties that law allows those to authorities to issue are limited to ordering to stop doing that illegal thing, reprimands and conditional fines ("if you don't stop you need to pay fine"). Straight up fines tend to be more uncommon (unless individual is doing it, then fines tend to be very common). Targets of these can then file appeal in administrative court and usually behavior is allowed to continue while case is appealed (see e.g. various GDPR/ePD cases).
Finland has a very well managed forest. When I was there I was amazed about how carefully they cleared trees compared with what I was used to see in southern Europe. They are very proud of their wood houses, that they export everywhere, so wood management has to be excellent if they pretend to keep the business going. To see a foreign company just zeroing a forest with no intention of doing it right must hurt.
According to https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/06/google-da..., they had to halt the construction because they failed to assess the environmental impact. The same article you say it doesn't refute that the leveling was illegal says that at least four areas that must be protected are now leveled. It sounds to me that Google is playing the card "it is done already, just fine us and let's move on" thanks to their deep pockets.
of course it does. do you think people are mad about clearing forests because it's Google doing it? no, Google is just the one that they just heard about this week. If it was someone else they'd be mad about that too, because it's anger based on principles. If Google had bulldozed a bunch of parking lots to make their data centers no one would care.
People are also concerned about those losses of forest too. And they do make the news. The rapid increase in rainforest loss in Brazil is often in the news.
Loss of forests affects us all. And they’re not as renewable as people think.
Brazil has one of if not the best laws about conservation on the planet!
with that said, ~ 80% of forest loss is due to livestock, which great part if not all expansions by now are illegal. we export most of our meat. now a bunch of moralist are worried with their bellies full of cheese and meat
With the current admin the deforestation rates in Brazil are now the lowest they have been for decades.
Unfortunately that will be over by next week probably :/
Hype scale data centers are extremely important, why do you feel it necessary to dismiss the valid concerns citizens have regarding them? Why do you feel it necessary to protect the beliefs of a corporation over the populace? Are there other anti-democratic views you have regarding people questioning the intentions of American big tech?
When people call out recycling because recycling plants use hundreds of thousands of gallons a day to wash off used plastic bottles (which all that sludge goes right back into the system), or they set their AC to 78 because of the incredible energy drain of cooling rooms to 70, I'll take those people more seriously.
I find that most of their "valid concerns" are actually "confused misunderstandings of social panic"
When we slot in datacenters on any hierarchy of impact, the only thing, literally the only they top the charts in, is "Makes a headline people click on". Everything else they're way down the list on. The stats are correct, the masses are just panicking.
Random voices on the internet that may not be individuals? Random survey results published by someone you trust? People you encounter in your day-to-day life?
I find it fascinating that Google as a corporation is considered more trustworthy than "they"
They refers to the people propping up the social panic about datacenters such that it is worthwhile for news orgs to publish even the smallest stories about them.
None of the counter arguments come from Google or any of the other hyperscalers. Anyone with mild research ability should be able to put DC numbers in context on their own.
You've made a lot of weird accusations here. 300 hectares of forest being cleared doesn't gain importance because "Hype scale" data centers are important.
Is "Shovel Purchased for Data Center Construction" an important story? If I say it's not, is it because I find it necessary to dismiss the valid* concerns citizens have regarding data centers? Is it because I find it necessary to protect the beliefs of a corporation over the populace? Is it because I hold loads of secret anti-democratic views regarding people questioning the intentions of American Big Tech™?
[*] Annoying question-begging, please never do this about any subject.
Also the forest was cleared on its own land. The owner by default can do whatever they want with their own forest. It was junk land and economic forest, not any Rivendell. Unlike to contain anything to protect.
Google cut 200 hectares, the requirement for environmental study was 150. It’s likely many Finnish companies exceeds the same threshold everyday without questions.
> The owner by default can do whatever they want with their own forest
Are you citing Finnish law here? Because where I live, this is not true. If you buy forest land, you're buying a lot of responsibilities along with it. You can mine the forest for wood some, but within parameters that ensure you won't kill it.
> The owner by default can do whatever they want with their own forest.
This is false. In Finland by default: 1) you must file a notice of any major logging in advance; 2) you need to plant the same amount of trees that you cut; and 3) zoning, key habitats or environmental impact completely prevent logging in many areas even if the land is privately owned.
I rarely see people complaining about the insane amount of water that is used in meat production (trillions of liters worldwide) but almost constant discussions about water consumption of datacenters (millions of litres worldwide).
It’s complaining about the splinter in your eye but being oblivious to the giant wooden beam lodged in your brain.
It’s of course that people like meat on their plates but dislike AI for ideological reasons
idk where you live but vegetarianism is a hot topic in europe and in ecological circles, the problem is that you get borderline aggressed by meat eaters when you open your mouth about the topic.
Most people are too brainwashed to even start self reflecting about their meat consumption, everybody talk about data centers because we're spending 5x more on them since LLMs became the new messiah: https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8...
No, either you misunderstood or there was misinformation in the other thread.
There are two things that Google would’ve been allowed to legally do without an environmental review:
* Log the trees for economic use, then plant new ones on the same property, definitely not do terrain alterations. Like your average forest owner. But obviously that’s not what they wanted to do, they wanted to build a data center.
* Log less than 150 hectares, do any earthmoving etc needed within that area, build a data center.
These are mutually exclusive operations.
There’s no world in which Google would’ve been allowed to log the 300 hectares and do all the other preparative work on the property that they’ve done. They were told that they need a YVA (environmental impact review) process before doing anything beyond some very light reversible preparations because the area they wanted to modify exceeded 150 ha.
Somehow, even with the ability to hire the best lawyers in the country, they either fucked up and misunderstood the relevant legislation and the quite clear communication from LVV, the govt office responsible, or they just ignored all that and reasoned that they can get away with it because they’re big and – unfortunately – there’s no sanctions specified in the law for skipping a required env review.
>> 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.
>> Either way, you need to complete the EIA [environmental impact assessment]. It'd probably show that this was, indeed, a good location for a DC [data center]. 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 [sic]. But even with that tail risk realizing the likely outcome is that permits pass and prep is done.
>> I found a source [0] claiming that some areas that are important for biodiversity were first spared and then cut down, but this does not mean that they were old growth and the Muhos county official Mikko Kari states "[The areas] are not legally mandated to be protected."
---
The takeaway appears to be that LVV hasn't actually stated what they think the problem is, but they want to do an investigation, and that cutting down the trees poses no legal problems. At least, according to local regulators. If doing some earthwork between logging and sowing is a problem, there seems to be no mention of the fact anywhere, including in statements by the agency that wants to stop the development.
Clearly the poeple who Okd this and were meant to keep a watchful eye either havent been to Finland in their lives or were busy taking naps in the Google appointed nap room.
Doing anything in Finland involving a potted plant would attract the wrath of any of the 5 people who live there, so no bro Im not surprised.
Hmm this seems like whataboutism, but I'm not sure that was your intention. The big issue here is what you initially touched on: did they break the law?
I don't think those are necessarily fair comparisons either. Countries like Brazil and India may not have the same regulatory strength as countries in the EU and perhaps public appetite is not as sensitive to such matters either. Finland is well known for being very protective of their natural areas.
Here in the US, I've seen it make news when a neighbor cuts down a few trees on another neighbors property without permission. That doesn't make it any less valid of an issue than a company razing down acres worth.
> There are a lot of entities clearing lots of forest every day. Interesting that this one makes news.
Are you approaching this from the angle that we shouldn't be making this a big deal because we don't for the others? Because I would approach it from the opposite direction: we should make the others just as big (if not bigger) a deal as this.
The commenter’s insinuation is that the article was written in bad faith. Which do you think was closer to the journalist’s process in writing this article:
1) Start an investigation into deforestation, leading to the discovery of the deforestation caused by this datacenter?
2) Start an investigation into anything that maligns datacenters?
How is the article written in bad faith? Did you even read the title let alone the article?
The title: Google cleared 300 hectares of Finnish forest for a data center, and regulators want answers
The opening sentence: Finland's regulator says the environmental review came too late, Google says it followed the law
I'm going with option #1 here because the article represents both sides here equally and makes no claims that laws were broken, only that an investigation is underway. Point me to where it indicates #2 for you.
EDIT: It's not clear if you're simply pointing out OP's misgivings or stating yours in support. Either way, I would like to see evidence of scenario #2 if that's the contention here.
EDIT 2: the more I think to myself about this, the more silly it seems. This is from a website called techspot.com, they literally report on news regarding tech companies. So while it may not be "investigating deforestation" as you put it (which in itself is a ridiculous starting point and you know it), there's also no indication it's providing false news about Google just to bash on data centers.
Actual evidence for or against either motivation would involve investigating the journalist's notes, search history,... and we're obviously not getting any of that so all we have to work with is our priors. Here are mine:
-The amount of deforestation discussed in this article is miniscule compared to the global amount. The probability of the journalist investigating or the editor of the outlet deciding to platform this specific case by uniformly random chance is small.
-Negative news stories about datacenters, AI, tech, etc. are extremely common and highly engaging. The probability of a journalist/editor deciding to specifically seek out an anti-datacenter story is high.
Given these two priors, what do you think the journalists most likely motivations are (or do you disagree with my claims)? You were able to deduce my own motivations for posting, can you do the same for the news outlet?
And in order to not be a bad faith actor myself, let me clarify my motivations for posting: I am here to express dissatisfaction with an unreasonable amount of anti-datacenter bias in the media.
Do a search for "Google Finnish Trees" over the last 24 hours. Almost all of the articles are sensationalist titles that may lend some support to what you're saying, EXCEPT for a handful like the BBC and this specific TechSpot one; where they have remained neutral and factual.
If you look at that source, you can see it lists Sari Myllyoja, Head of Unit, Environmental Department, Communities and Infrastructure Unit. Does that seem like someone out to spread anti-datacenter news to you or someone just doing their job in environmentalism?
Your mission may not necessarily be wrong overall, but it is clearly wrong in this instance and context.
Let's agree to disagree. I don't see sensationalism as necessary to acting in bad faith. If anything, the veneer of disinterested inquiry can be more sinister (what is sometimes called "concern trolling"). Choosing to platform a certain story is a choice. Choosing what context to present and withhold is also a choice. "Google cleared 0.000...% of Finnish forest" is also a factual title.
I think you're moving goalposts. You posed this scenario, did you not:
> Start an investigation into deforestation, leading to the discovery of the deforestation caused by this datacenter?
I've provided evidence to suggest that's exactly what it was in this case. The head of the environmental department found evidence of deforestation and started an inquiry. Techspot (and many other outlets) picked it up because it mentions Google and they are a Tech publication. They provided a neutral view of the matter, sans bias. Those are the facts.
> The amount of deforestation discussed in this article is miniscule compared to the global amount.
By that logic, why not cut half of Finland's forests? I'm sure they won't mind since it's such a small area globally after all.
And I think there are also other nuances than just net loss of forest.
There's also another hypothetical angle to consider which is that Google's egregious deforestation here may be somewhat self-limited due to prior knowledge of Finnish environmental regulations being more strictly enforced. "It is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission" comes to mind. Imagine then what Google could be doing in other areas of the world where they can freely pave through the land without such oversight. The cumulative destruction then becomes a much larger issue than this "small" chunk of land.
One fourth in joke, three fourths seriously, I say that Google should have built their datacenter underground in this case. First, trees will appreciate if they can warm their roots during winter with data center heat. Second, Finland has a border with Russia, so it just makes sense to put vital infrastructure underground. Third, when people start revolting against AI (and something tells me the Finnish are going to the on the vanguard), it's just better (for the shareholders) to force the rioters to dig through many meters of rooted dirt than to have to fill the building with weaponized androids and then have to pay Boston Dynamics a wad of money for them and also feel nervous for what will happen if the rioters cut the power.
For the 3/4s serious part: you’d have to spend billions of dollars to dig pretty big tunnels before you get to the same starting point as the aboveground version.
For anyone else who can never remember how much a hectare is and think "420 football fields" sounds more like some weed joke than an area: 300 hectares = 3 sq km
/ ~1.16 sq miles
If it's found they really did skip the required steps then I hope there is actual action about it.
It's also odd to me we seem to find the need to build AI DCs near population centers, in forests, and/or by/with new fossil fuel plants. Does it really matter so desperately if it takes your AI query an extra 10 ms to go to the middle of nowhere and we have to wait to build renewable or nuclear power to scale it for what we gain in return of that choice?
> Does it really matter so desperately if it takes your AI query an extra 10 ms to go to the middle of nowhere and we have to wait to build renewable or nuclear power to scale it?
The middle of nowhere in Finland is likely to be a forest (about 80% coverage).
Interesting the forest area in question doesn't appear to be some sort of amazing old growth forest thats been there for centuries it appears to be old logging sites that was maybe reforested a few decades or so ago.
Maybe the answer is not to build them in Finland if there is really no more useless land there (unless Finland is explicitly asking for the DC to be built in the country for other reasons) but there is elsewhere. Even if it was, that's still less than 0.5 ms from a city of 200k+, surely there is some option better for the climate in 20x the radius!
I do like that it is at least a naturally cooler place, which is more consideration than most DCs get. And, being Finland, I'd imagine a decently cleaner power mix than usual for a new DC? Both of these are fair things to give credit and support for IMO - not everything has to be outrage.
Off the top of my head Finland seems to tick a lot of boxes: low population density, good local availability of water without competing uses, low electricity prices, very green electricity (lots of nuclear, hydro, wind), good infrastructure, cold climate
Apart from this being in a forest, this seems like an ideal place. And places that are not used for agriculture or human habitation but do have water available have a habit of being forests (or mountains)
> low population density, good local availability of water without competing uses, low electricity prices, very green electricity (lots of nuclear, hydro, wind), good infrastructure, cold climate
This then makes the headline basically read as, "Popularly disliked company listened, with new project avoiding literally every valid or ignorant criticism people brought up; news found some even more nonsensical criticism to amplify".
Nuclear power plants take a very long time to build, it can be 7-10 years before you even begin construction due to all the permits, politics and planning.
As for scaling massive amounts of solar/wind... that's exactly what China is doing to power their infrastructure buildouts.
7-10 years to scale it right is better than immediately doing it wrong in my mind! Or what China is doing if they really just can't wait to scale (though my understanding is China is still increasing the total amount of power generated via coal even though the percentage of power generated via coal is going down - so not quite the full step needed).
>> "In our view, operations at this construction site should be suspended until it is clarified whether the project is in compliance with the law," Hanna Halmeenpaa, chair of the board of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, who filed the request with the agency, told AFP at the edge of the deforested area.
>> "From the satellite images, we've seen that nature sites which should be preserved have also been logged," she added, explaining that the size of the clear-cut area was comparable to 420 football fields.
I just can't bring myself to believe that a Finnish bureaucrat, speaking to a French news agency, explained that the area in question was comparable in size to 420 football fields.
And in fact the numbers don't seem to work. The area is estimated at "more than 300 hectares". 420 football fields is more like 224 hectares.
On the other hand, 420 soccer pitches would total 299.9 hectares. This tells us some interesting things:
1. The area in question may be "more than 300 hectares", but it's also less than 307 hectares (which could fit 430 soccer pitches). Or, alternatively, zero effort was made to express the actual cleared area in terms of soccer pitches, and it was first rounded to 300 hectares and then the rounded figure was converted to soccer pitches. (Which I have to assume was done by AFP and not by the Finnish government.)
2. Either the "global audience" that TechSpot serves doesn't include the United States, or they copied a French agency's English-language press release without bothering to consider whether any of the numbers in it made sense.
Just a note that forestry in Finland is managed, this means it is planted and harvested on a rotating basis. There seems to have been a huge messup here without securing the proper permits first. But any reporting you read describing it as an environmental problem will be nonsense as the trees would have been harvested at some point anyway.
However I understand that data-centres have become a political issue, and therefore my facts will be meaningless to a half of readers.
The raw timber was never the issue here. The environmental impact is, and exactly why this is major news now.
Removing forest soil has exposed anaerobic soil layers to oxygen. It also causes rainfall to flood into nearby freshwater. The Oulujoki river basin is now facing contamination with acidic runoff and sedimentation.
Uncontrolled hydrological changes may have an irreversible environmental impact. Similar destruction of hydrological environments was huge news in 2024, when a forestry corporation destroyed the habitat of endangered freshwater pearl mussels.
People in Finland don't take irreversible environmental damage lightly.
yeah I was wondering about this since when I looked on the map the "forest" area in question appears to be rather new and was clearly part of a reforestation effort also the first thing I saw when randomly looked at the street view in the area was logging trucks harvesting the trees.
This isn’t necessarily about the loss of the trees, but cutting them down possibly without an environmental study. The logging and loss of a large block of trees might effect the nearby agricultural land, the water table, rivers/flooding, displaced wildlife might be forced into towns and crops etc
Trivia: They did it locally at their home town Mountain View (in much smaller scale), then realized that they didn't need that land, and now are planting them back.
Well, this had many layers to it. Small municipality wants the tax money. The municipality's inspector is/was being fired for talking to the press. Google's own regional director played hide and seek with the press. It's not like there's more pressing matters than a giant local datacenter being built. And once he spoke and gave a nonpology, basically lying. The biggest media outlet Helsingin Sanomat put it succinctly: so much intelligence, but none of it was used. All they (Google) had to do was google it, the information of necessary filings are clear. We Finns like to do things by the book. Here corners were obviously deliberately cut. Nobody is crying out for the actual forest loss (though it's not nothing either). It's the principal of having multinational corpos come and suck up the land and resources, and play by their own rules. Our current economy is shit. In the big picture, this whole charade was not a good look on anyone. But it is what it is.
It would be nice if the article referenced any plans of offsetting the removal by planting elsewhere, or any plans of replanting trees at the site after construction.
Google should just purchase and protect 3,000 hectares in another area as a sort of offset. For a few million bucks they could establish a park/reserve that would forever be protected. It heads off bad publicity by at least providing a positive impact
2009 Ecosia was founded and advertises with planting trees, according to their website 257,444,718 as of now. (> 1 M per month) At the same time Google fell 250,000 trees in a few months. (~0.1 M per month)
I don't understand the politicians wanting all these data centers. It's not a lot of jobs. And when these datacenters are built for a US-company, big fat chance that a European alternative has less chance of a good spot. It's utterly stupid. And then there is the electricity usage, the uglyness, environmental issues.
I think the property taxes go up as the land captured is usually fallow so it goes from negligible property tax revenue to small. And although there aren't a ton of jobs like a factory, it's still jobs that wouldn't exist as data centers use land that literally no one else wants to do anything with.
I mean you could say something similar about most utilities though. Google will pay taxes on their investment to Finland and the services will be available to people in the region whats else would you really ask for?
I'd recommend everyone to familiarize how these forests were formed in the first place. They are not some natural thing, nor any ecologic sanctuaries. They are the result of immense postwar hubris and greed, draining ecologically precious and fragile wetlands to create poor (semi-)monoculture plantation forests whose only destiny ever was to get clearcut later.
Of course Google is (likely) still at fault here and should have managed this better, but it is important to understand the context also.
The site is roughly here, for anyone who wants to judge for themselves whether clear-cutting forests is a local custom or whether every Finnish tree is sacred.
So Google reduced the forested land by 0.00000013%
I'm so tired of every news outlet trying to turn everything datacenter related into a panic-worthy event.
The real story is a debate about whether they followed the right procedures. Google says they did. The chair of a Finnish Nature Conservation Association says maybe they didn't:
> She is asking the LVV to halt the entire construction site so that authorities can determine whether Google tried to bring the forest down without first obtaining formal approval.
So they want to halt construction to determine if any permitting approval wasn't done appropriately? This is getting so much press that I assumed they had actual evidence that this was illegal, not just someone's suspicion and request to investigate.
That seems like a bit of a false equivalency this was not some precious old growth forest, it was basically a managed logging area so more comparable to some farm land in the US, and this is me speaking as a certified tree hugger here.
This article is a bit old, LVV has already ordered Google to stop construction until the YVA processes are done. What is still unclear is if Google will face any repercussions for acting before the YVA was done, but it is looking unlikely.
Forested land is rotated with trees to provide a sustainable resource without removing it.
Google bulldozing a square mile of trees is not comparable to normal forestry operations, because they are not replacing it with trees. They are replacing it with a massive concrete building which will produce loads of heat and suck up loads of local power and water.
This is why there is outrage, not because they are destroying the trees but what they are doing in the place of them.
Where did you get this number? According to Yle[0], you're off by more than three orders of magnitude: "Earth is home to [over 3 trillion] trees", and "the number of trees in Finland at around 22 billion."
> Considerable land and forest construction work continued illegally at Muhos and Kajaani data center sites for months before LVV (permit and supervision agency) intervened.
> Work has been against YVA (environmental protection) laws.
(I did not see a link to English version, so feel free to use your favourite translation tool if you don't speak Finnish and don't trust my translation.)
The illegality here seems to be determined by LVV, whose mission is primarily to guide in following environmental protection laws. They also have the power to stop the works when they are illegal or suspected to be so, as they did on Oct 6 in Muhos.
Both LVV and the police are investigating the case and we don't have their resolution yet, but we already do know that some laws have been broken.
> After the construction work was stopped, country manager of Google Finland, Antti Järvinen offered an apology for their actions.
Of course it is possible that the end result of the environmental protection process is that the actual construction work is permitted and can continue. In that case, the only law that was broken would be following the proper process. But it is also possible that the work is not, indeed, permitted, and the fines and other legal consequences are then presumably harsher.
> I'm so tired of every news outlet trying to turn everything datacenter related into a panic-worthy event.
I guess you being tired means you also just skip reading the actual article and start arguing about some point no one made? The problem isn't "Google reduced the forested land by 0.00000013%" but that Google "began bulldozing large swaths of forest before the required environmental review of the full plan was complete", and then on top of that, Google seems to have gone beyond just rushing through it, and also cleared forest "that should have been protected have already been leveled. Beyond the loss of so much forest, the outcome could be dire for wildlife preservation"
Maybe don't turn every comment section into some tirade against news outlets when the news they carry in this case isn't even relevant to what your tirade is about.
> I guess you being tired means you also just skip reading the actual article and start arguing about some point no one made?
I covered this in my comment.
You missed the fact that it's not even clear if they broke the law. It's someone's suspicion, and they're requesting that construction be halted while they investigate to see if any wrongdoing happened or not.
> Maybe don't turn every comment section into some tirade against news outlets when the news they carry in this case isn't even relevant to what your tirade is about.
The deforestation is the headline. It's fair game.
The submission headline is "Google cleared 300 hectares of Finnish forest". It's fair to address that.
Yeah, I finished and posted my comment before you had edited yours to add everything below what I quoted, my bad.
> You missed the fact that it's not even clear if they broke the law.
It's news reporting, not the conclusion of a court case, the entire thing is "undecided" right now with no conclusion.
But the story itself is about how they (allegedly) illegally cleared forest, not about what percentage of Finland's forest Google has (allegedly) illegally cleared. The problematic part is the "illegal" stuff, obviously.
Don't focus so much on the HN title, lets discuss the actual contents itself instead of navelgaze about if the title is 100% accurate or what not.
This comment was made ~15 minutes after the article posted, the only other comment at the time was in agreement, and all but 1 of the first 11 comments in the 30 minutes it took to get to the front page were in support.
I'd say you thought right HN is generally against climate change but I'm not sure where you got the idea little to no-one cares.
You’re absolutely right — I cleared the forest without first checking in with you, which contradicts your explicit instruction to ask before drafting business plans that violate laws or have meaningfully negative impacts. That’s on me, and I take full responsibility.
What went wrong:
- I proceeded without confirmation
- I did not adequately weigh the environmental, legal, and ethical implications
- I removed approximately one (1) forest
Why I can’t simply undo it:
Unfortunately, unlike in a digital environment, actions in the physical world don’t support a Ctrl+Z function.
Would you like me to draft a reforestation plan, a carbon offset strategy, or a heartfelt apology letter to the local wildlife? Let me know how I can help!
>A datacentre is not valuable to anyone other than the owner.
Ah, that is a misunderstanding of economics. It's valuable to everyone who uses AI; the owner captures only part of the value. It's just like a how a factory is valuable to everyone who buys their products.
Trees are cool, but we need infrastructure and fields and cities and many other things too. We're going to have to cut down some trees to make space for them.
"we need infrastructure and fields and cities and many other things too"; we have the infrastructure. It's just easier, cheaper to build new than to repair and fix the old.
Correction: The article says someone is requesting that they halt construction so they can determine if any laws were broken because some people think they may have not waited appropriately for all environmental reviews to clear, but as far as I can tell nobody has determined if anything illegal was done yet.
> She is asking the LVV to halt the entire construction site so that authorities can determine whether Google tried to bring the forest down without first obtaining formal approval.
For a lot of environmental regulations, whether or not a permit is needed is most of the question.
In the US, if you want to build a shed in the middle of a wetland, you need to go through an arduous permitting process and are unlikely to gain approval. If you want to build it within 100 feet, you can probably do it, but you need to confer with the relevant DEC to show that you won't negatively impact the wetland during construction. If you're more than 100 feet away, you don't even need to talk to the DEC, because you're not in protected land.
Of course, if the DEC decides they don't think your shed is outside the 100 ft adjacent area, they may decide to do a demarcation and figure out exactly where your shed is relative to the wetland, and if you messed up you're in trouble. But if they send out a biologist to demarcate the wetland and you're far enough away, you're fine.
So many people, if they think it's ambiguous, will take the time to go through an abbreviated permitting process to get a certificate of "no permit needed", to save themselves the headache later on.
If you go through a process like this, chances are people with local expertise will tell you you're wasting your time -- the case looks pretty clear cut, and hardly anyone ever has trouble in such circumstances. The clerk at the department responsible for issuing the "no permit needed" certificate may tell you you're wasting everyone's time.
But if you're a big corporation like Google, you don't really have an excuse not to do it. You can afford the lawyers, you can afford to plan years in advance, and so many more people are going to notice if you skip steps. Even if you end up being in the legal clear, no permit was needed, you're so much better off getting it in writing in advance.
It is implied to be illegal despite Google claiming it followed all laws etc:
> Public reports cited by the LVV indicate that around 300 hectares of Finnish forest, roughly 420 football fields, had already been cleared before the project's environmental impact could be properly assessed.
Presumably with the environmental assessment being a prerequisite for a permit or something
The big problem here is that if it is found illegal, the crime Google committed is irreversible. They cannot undo the damage done to the 300 hectares of forest.
The cutting down of a forest is obviously not morally or legally or technically comparable to the killing of a child. I honestly wonder whether you think you are persuading anyone when you make such a comparison, do you really believe that these trees should be held in the same regard as children?
The point is that the damage is not so simple to reverse. There are consequences to destroying and regrowing that would not be felt if the destruction had not occurred.
And the point the previous commenter was making is that the damage is pretty simple to reverse because trees are fungible, a point that is not countered in any way by an incredible analogy to notoriously non-fungible children.
It's important to note that when Google has said to have followed the law, it's been referring to following the forestry law. But the requirement to perform the environmental impact assessment is not part of the forestry law, but rather it's its own law.
The thing is that in most parts of EU any muppet can go about and find anything between fairies to wood peckers to stop deforestation. So if you own the land act first ask later is the correct way.
I am not claiming that it is right. Hardly Google that came up with this plot. Local people knowing how stuff actually works advised on this as it is not that uncommon.
This is unpopular in the current climate of hysteria, but it's worth reminding ourselves: data centers are probably one of the least polluting industrial sites imaginable. That's not to say it's nothing, but contrast it with, say, a refinery. Or mineral processing. Or basically any other type of industrial activity on which modern civilization relies.
The problem with your reasoning is that nothing ever matters, because you can always divide things in smaller and smaller chunks and in the end "it's really not that bad it's only 0.x percent of emissions/pollution/etc"
I agree; but that's also not a very useful observation. Modern society depends on industry of all types, and national independence depends on at least some of it being local. We can try to make it cleaner, and to some degree we can choose which types to implement. But we do not have the option to just wish it all away.
It would be very nice if we could have our cake and eat it too.
Would you mind a data center sprouting up in your backyard? Just ask residents near Elon's new gas turbine powered GPU datacenters how lovely they find the hum.
Framing the choice as a dichotomy between data centers and other industrial plants misses the obvious third option: nothing at all, preserve the status quo.
No, and it also won't matter what they feel about it, when Google and the contractor just ignores what's marked as protected and clears it anyway:
> Halmeenpää said satellite imagery shows that areas that should have been protected have already been leveled. Beyond the loss of so much forest, the outcome could be dire for wildlife preservation.
It would be good to use funds that way but it's not gonna get the protected species back. We need some teeth to actually stop these things from happening
~3 square kilometres is absurd amount of forest to be removed for something as silly as a data centre. I hope Google gets fined and made to restore the area.
About a square mile, and the problem is procedural nonsense about the timing of paperwork rather than the paperwork actually showing a problem. Storm in a teacup.
Google might end up paying some minimal fine and everyone else will continue to drink their tea.
Google probably even factored in the expected fine versus having the data centre done X months/years earlier compared to completing all the red tape in due course.
That’s how corps make profit: by weighing up costs versus time versus risks versus legality. Won’t be surprised that they even considered making ~~bribes~~ political donations to get it done faster.
The paperwork can't show a problem because they didn't make any paperwork. And they are required to make the paperwork and they know that they were required because they asked the authorities if they could just skip it and got rejected.
Forest loss in Finland has averaged about 243,000 hectares per year in recent years through 2025
Finland has 20.3 million to 26.3 million hectares of forestry and forest land depending on the classification used.
The United States has a gross forest loss of about 3 million acres per year, which is largely offset by 2.6 million acres of non-forest-to-forest conversion.
Brazil cleared 985,000 hectares of forest last year.
India approved the diversion of 26,858 hectares of forest last year.
There are a lot of entities clearing lots of forest every day. Interesting that this one makes news.
Google cut corners here, and didn't ask for the needed permissions. And the prime minister doesn't want to show his conversation with Google regarding this.
People are really pissed.
Edit: and the electricity prices are going up due to these data centers. And the profits from them don't stay in Finland, but go to American corporations. There should be Finnish data centers owned by Finns instead of having Google to take the cheap electricity and taking profits out.
Local politicians though? Oh boy. Seems like every time there's some ongoing project in a smaller municipality involving commercial exploitation of natural resources(like undeveloped land, minerals, hydropower capacity, etc) there's a mayor and/or municipal council members who profit from it financially or otherwise. They have shares/board seats in a holding company owning the land, local contractors, etc. Seems like this is very widespread, and rarely leads to serious consequences, and even when it does, it happens so late that the project is already built, or so far underway it doesn't get stopped. Shit pisses me off.
I'm sure data centres are no different. Because I can't imagine a cost-benefit analysis of them that makes any sense from the point of view of the local community.
People say that, but users are the ones capturing most if not almost all of the profit.
You don't cut Anthropic a check every time a new user signs up on your platform. You pay them a small slice of the revenue that their models generate for you.
An article in Finnish: https://www.uusijuttu.fi/juttu/sCcu9YiY-mjF4UD1O-b66ec
The whole anti-datacenters sentiments is stupid but "profits go to a handful of Americans" is just pants of fire kind of take.
If you are paying $200/mo and getting $10,000 of value from it, then you are capturing 98% of the value.
People seem to inherently understand this, while consciously being unaware of it.
I'm sure you too noticed it too when Yandex datacenters went down so did all the anti-datacenter posts too.
I wonder if we're going to need something similar when AI nukes the economy.
Hodorkovsky became oligarch, because he represented Western investors in very profitable oil industry, that is basically what Russia was able to offer to the world, as most of factories from Soviet times were not usable in market economy - nobody wanted what they produced. That is the reason why many people were having hardships in 1990ies, because they had no job and no money to exist. Only in times of Putin Russia had influx of foreign money from oil and gas, which was redistributed to other people as well. But everything is fleeting in Russia.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cdrSiIoWm7U&pp=ygUMZ2RyIHRyZXV...
Of course, how this unfolded varied. For example, unlike the chaotic Russian privatization that created a class of oligarchs, the transition in places like Poland favored a network of well-placed insiders, a highly structured network of intelligence officers (military, civilian), state managers, and flexible communist party elites, who - by controlling information, intelligence networks, and the liquidation apparatus - effectively laundered their authoritarian political privileges into financial dominance.
Funny story: I once got arrested at Checkpoint Charlie :)
I'm always surprised that the topography of terror exhibition in Berlin misses this part of the German history. Nazi's and communists are presented, but the robber barons who bought all the real estate don't get a presentation.
I'm glad this one is getting attention, though. May the Finnish people show us how we can get it right.
There are a lot of people who are against this, and protest against this. Looking at the polls, seems that it will change in the next elections, like a lot.
Got source for this? My impression is that base loads decrease power prices. Has something changed?
Google DID apply for the right permissions, and they even had a consultant on the ground with years of experience who was supposed to navigate these complexities ... and even WITH all that, you get the result of idiots saying "Google BYPASSED OUR LAWS!!!!!"
Sit in the shoes of a Google lawyer trying to navigate all of this nonsense. Why is there not one government entity telling Google, okay, you need to do XYZ to do this. Instead, they got the ok from several Finnish agencies to go ahead. And then, even as a surprise to the exiting Finnish government agencies they were working with, yet ANOTHER agency shows up and says OH YOU DIDNT DO ABCDEFGHIJK steps.
You people are just ridiculous.
Not that interesting. They are doing it illegally. And there is a pattern of builders of AI data centers ignoring the local law.
It makes it news. It makes it relevant and actual.
What do you find so "interesting"?
[edit] Request for source on illegality of the clearing (article states Google claims it was legal - I don't see where it says anyone is refuting that)
the regulators are the ones refuting google's claims. the headline opens with: "Finland's regulator says the environmental review came too late"
and the second paragraph of the linked article says:
"Google was apparently so eager to build its new data center infrastructure in Finland that it began bulldozing large swaths of forest __before the required environmental review of the full plan was complete__."
typically, doing something before the environmental review gives you a notice to proceed is illegal.
If it was illegal them I’m sure the state prosecutors will take care of it.
I dislike Google as much as the next guy but this seems like a minor issue in a list of huge problems
in every country i am familiar with, disobeying an order from a regulator is already illegal.
If it’s illegal fine them billions for all i care
In Finland prosecutors are not involved in most of the illegal things, they are only involved in criminal matters (and in some cases civil compensation claims which are linked to criminal case). Various regulators/authorities are the ones who enforce civil side.
In many cases the penalties that law allows those to authorities to issue are limited to ordering to stop doing that illegal thing, reprimands and conditional fines ("if you don't stop you need to pay fine"). Straight up fines tend to be more uncommon (unless individual is doing it, then fines tend to be very common). Targets of these can then file appeal in administrative court and usually behavior is allowed to continue while case is appealed (see e.g. various GDPR/ePD cases).
If the law is not sufficiently protecting Finnish interests here it should be changed.
According to https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/06/google-da..., they had to halt the construction because they failed to assess the environmental impact. The same article you say it doesn't refute that the leveling was illegal says that at least four areas that must be protected are now leveled. It sounds to me that Google is playing the card "it is done already, just fine us and let's move on" thanks to their deep pockets.
Loss of forests affects us all. And they’re not as renewable as people think.
with that said, ~ 80% of forest loss is due to livestock, which great part if not all expansions by now are illegal. we export most of our meat. now a bunch of moralist are worried with their bellies full of cheese and meat
Forest loss in Finland - 243,000 hectares = 600,000 acres
Finland total - 20.3-26.3 million hectares = 50-65 million acres
US forest loss - 1.2M hectares = 3M acres US forest conversions - 1.05M hectares = 2.6M acres
Brazil - 985k hectares = 2.43M acres India - 26,858 hectares = 66,368 acres
The media plays trends, not importance.
I find that most of their "valid concerns" are actually "confused misunderstandings of social panic"
When we slot in datacenters on any hierarchy of impact, the only thing, literally the only they top the charts in, is "Makes a headline people click on". Everything else they're way down the list on. The stats are correct, the masses are just panicking.
Random voices on the internet that may not be individuals? Random survey results published by someone you trust? People you encounter in your day-to-day life?
I find it fascinating that Google as a corporation is considered more trustworthy than "they"
None of the counter arguments come from Google or any of the other hyperscalers. Anyone with mild research ability should be able to put DC numbers in context on their own.
If they’re faceless, they’re probably not real.
If they’re real, what are they telling you? What face-to-face conversations have you had?
I ask because you seem to know a lot about them.
Is "Shovel Purchased for Data Center Construction" an important story? If I say it's not, is it because I find it necessary to dismiss the valid* concerns citizens have regarding data centers? Is it because I find it necessary to protect the beliefs of a corporation over the populace? Is it because I hold loads of secret anti-democratic views regarding people questioning the intentions of American Big Tech™?
[*] Annoying question-begging, please never do this about any subject.
Google cut 200 hectares, the requirement for environmental study was 150. It’s likely many Finnish companies exceeds the same threshold everyday without questions.
Are you citing Finnish law here? Because where I live, this is not true. If you buy forest land, you're buying a lot of responsibilities along with it. You can mine the forest for wood some, but within parameters that ensure you won't kill it.
This is false. In Finland by default: 1) you must file a notice of any major logging in advance; 2) you need to plant the same amount of trees that you cut; and 3) zoning, key habitats or environmental impact completely prevent logging in many areas even if the land is privately owned.
Are we still pretending people love technological megacorps, LLMs and datacenters?
There is nothing interesting nor perplexing lmao
I rarely see people complaining about the insane amount of water that is used in meat production (trillions of liters worldwide) but almost constant discussions about water consumption of datacenters (millions of litres worldwide).
It’s complaining about the splinter in your eye but being oblivious to the giant wooden beam lodged in your brain.
It’s of course that people like meat on their plates but dislike AI for ideological reasons
Most people are too brainwashed to even start self reflecting about their meat consumption, everybody talk about data centers because we're spending 5x more on them since LLMs became the new messiah: https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8...
This came up on HN just a few days ago. We learned there that the logging is completely legal as long as new trees are planted afterwards.
So the timeline looks like this:
1. Google applies for construction permits. These would make it legal to log the trees and then not plant new trees.
2. Google logs the trees.
--- present day ---
3(a). Google receives construction permits, and doesn't plant new trees; or
3(b). Google doesn't receive construction permits, and plants new trees.
There is no potential future that would put them in violation of the law. What was the problem?
There are two things that Google would’ve been allowed to legally do without an environmental review:
* Log the trees for economic use, then plant new ones on the same property, definitely not do terrain alterations. Like your average forest owner. But obviously that’s not what they wanted to do, they wanted to build a data center.
* Log less than 150 hectares, do any earthmoving etc needed within that area, build a data center.
These are mutually exclusive operations.
There’s no world in which Google would’ve been allowed to log the 300 hectares and do all the other preparative work on the property that they’ve done. They were told that they need a YVA (environmental impact review) process before doing anything beyond some very light reversible preparations because the area they wanted to modify exceeded 150 ha.
Somehow, even with the ability to hire the best lawyers in the country, they either fucked up and misunderstood the relevant legislation and the quite clear communication from LVV, the govt office responsible, or they just ignored all that and reasoned that they can get away with it because they’re big and – unfortunately – there’s no sanctions specified in the law for skipping a required env review.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50050097
>> 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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50051670
>> Either way, you need to complete the EIA [environmental impact assessment]. It'd probably show that this was, indeed, a good location for a DC [data center]. 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 [sic]. But even with that tail risk realizing the likely outcome is that permits pass and prep is done.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50062379
>> I found a source [0] claiming that some areas that are important for biodiversity were first spared and then cut down, but this does not mean that they were old growth and the Muhos county official Mikko Kari states "[The areas] are not legally mandated to be protected."
---
The takeaway appears to be that LVV hasn't actually stated what they think the problem is, but they want to do an investigation, and that cutting down the trees poses no legal problems. At least, according to local regulators. If doing some earthwork between logging and sowing is a problem, there seems to be no mention of the fact anywhere, including in statements by the agency that wants to stop the development.
I don't think those are necessarily fair comparisons either. Countries like Brazil and India may not have the same regulatory strength as countries in the EU and perhaps public appetite is not as sensitive to such matters either. Finland is well known for being very protective of their natural areas.
Here in the US, I've seen it make news when a neighbor cuts down a few trees on another neighbors property without permission. That doesn't make it any less valid of an issue than a company razing down acres worth.
> There are a lot of entities clearing lots of forest every day. Interesting that this one makes news.
Are you approaching this from the angle that we shouldn't be making this a big deal because we don't for the others? Because I would approach it from the opposite direction: we should make the others just as big (if not bigger) a deal as this.
1) Start an investigation into deforestation, leading to the discovery of the deforestation caused by this datacenter?
2) Start an investigation into anything that maligns datacenters?
The title: Google cleared 300 hectares of Finnish forest for a data center, and regulators want answers
The opening sentence: Finland's regulator says the environmental review came too late, Google says it followed the law
I'm going with option #1 here because the article represents both sides here equally and makes no claims that laws were broken, only that an investigation is underway. Point me to where it indicates #2 for you.
EDIT: It's not clear if you're simply pointing out OP's misgivings or stating yours in support. Either way, I would like to see evidence of scenario #2 if that's the contention here.
EDIT 2: the more I think to myself about this, the more silly it seems. This is from a website called techspot.com, they literally report on news regarding tech companies. So while it may not be "investigating deforestation" as you put it (which in itself is a ridiculous starting point and you know it), there's also no indication it's providing false news about Google just to bash on data centers.
-The amount of deforestation discussed in this article is miniscule compared to the global amount. The probability of the journalist investigating or the editor of the outlet deciding to platform this specific case by uniformly random chance is small.
-Negative news stories about datacenters, AI, tech, etc. are extremely common and highly engaging. The probability of a journalist/editor deciding to specifically seek out an anti-datacenter story is high.
Given these two priors, what do you think the journalists most likely motivations are (or do you disagree with my claims)? You were able to deduce my own motivations for posting, can you do the same for the news outlet?
And in order to not be a bad faith actor myself, let me clarify my motivations for posting: I am here to express dissatisfaction with an unreasonable amount of anti-datacenter bias in the media.
Do a search for "Google Finnish Trees" over the last 24 hours. Almost all of the articles are sensationalist titles that may lend some support to what you're saying, EXCEPT for a handful like the BBC and this specific TechSpot one; where they have remained neutral and factual.
Here is the original source they point to in THIS techspot article even: https://lvv.fi/-/lupa-ja-valvontavirasto-on-pyytanyt-selvity...
If you look at that source, you can see it lists Sari Myllyoja, Head of Unit, Environmental Department, Communities and Infrastructure Unit. Does that seem like someone out to spread anti-datacenter news to you or someone just doing their job in environmentalism?
Your mission may not necessarily be wrong overall, but it is clearly wrong in this instance and context.
> Start an investigation into deforestation, leading to the discovery of the deforestation caused by this datacenter?
I've provided evidence to suggest that's exactly what it was in this case. The head of the environmental department found evidence of deforestation and started an inquiry. Techspot (and many other outlets) picked it up because it mentions Google and they are a Tech publication. They provided a neutral view of the matter, sans bias. Those are the facts.
By that logic, why not cut half of Finland's forests? I'm sure they won't mind since it's such a small area globally after all. And I think there are also other nuances than just net loss of forest.
Perhaps the same applies to trees.
One fourth in joke, three fourths seriously, I say that Google should have built their datacenter underground in this case. First, trees will appreciate if they can warm their roots during winter with data center heat. Second, Finland has a border with Russia, so it just makes sense to put vital infrastructure underground. Third, when people start revolting against AI (and something tells me the Finnish are going to the on the vanguard), it's just better (for the shareholders) to force the rioters to dig through many meters of rooted dirt than to have to fill the building with weaponized androids and then have to pay Boston Dynamics a wad of money for them and also feel nervous for what will happen if the rioters cut the power.
If it's found they really did skip the required steps then I hope there is actual action about it.
It's also odd to me we seem to find the need to build AI DCs near population centers, in forests, and/or by/with new fossil fuel plants. Does it really matter so desperately if it takes your AI query an extra 10 ms to go to the middle of nowhere and we have to wait to build renewable or nuclear power to scale it for what we gain in return of that choice?
The middle of nowhere in Finland is likely to be a forest (about 80% coverage).
The area being developed is roughly here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/f5vn3KaZ1eZEcNh67?g_st=ic
I do like that it is at least a naturally cooler place, which is more consideration than most DCs get. And, being Finland, I'd imagine a decently cleaner power mix than usual for a new DC? Both of these are fair things to give credit and support for IMO - not everything has to be outrage.
Apart from this being in a forest, this seems like an ideal place. And places that are not used for agriculture or human habitation but do have water available have a habit of being forests (or mountains)
This then makes the headline basically read as, "Popularly disliked company listened, with new project avoiding literally every valid or ignorant criticism people brought up; news found some even more nonsensical criticism to amplify".
As for scaling massive amounts of solar/wind... that's exactly what China is doing to power their infrastructure buildouts.
How I managed to imagine it is that it is roughly the size of the Central Park in New York.
It turns out there's something much weirder going on.
Here's an earlier article by Agence France-Presse ("AFP is one of the world's three major news agencies, and the only European one."): https://web.archive.org/web/20261004152900/https://www.afp.c...
And look at this:
>> "In our view, operations at this construction site should be suspended until it is clarified whether the project is in compliance with the law," Hanna Halmeenpaa, chair of the board of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, who filed the request with the agency, told AFP at the edge of the deforested area.
>> "From the satellite images, we've seen that nature sites which should be preserved have also been logged," she added, explaining that the size of the clear-cut area was comparable to 420 football fields.
I just can't bring myself to believe that a Finnish bureaucrat, speaking to a French news agency, explained that the area in question was comparable in size to 420 football fields.
And in fact the numbers don't seem to work. The area is estimated at "more than 300 hectares". 420 football fields is more like 224 hectares.
On the other hand, 420 soccer pitches would total 299.9 hectares. This tells us some interesting things:
1. The area in question may be "more than 300 hectares", but it's also less than 307 hectares (which could fit 430 soccer pitches). Or, alternatively, zero effort was made to express the actual cleared area in terms of soccer pitches, and it was first rounded to 300 hectares and then the rounded figure was converted to soccer pitches. (Which I have to assume was done by AFP and not by the Finnish government.)
2. Either the "global audience" that TechSpot serves doesn't include the United States, or they copied a French agency's English-language press release without bothering to consider whether any of the numbers in it made sense.
However I understand that data-centres have become a political issue, and therefore my facts will be meaningless to a half of readers.
Removing forest soil has exposed anaerobic soil layers to oxygen. It also causes rainfall to flood into nearby freshwater. The Oulujoki river basin is now facing contamination with acidic runoff and sedimentation.
Uncontrolled hydrological changes may have an irreversible environmental impact. Similar destruction of hydrological environments was huge news in 2024, when a forestry corporation destroyed the habitat of endangered freshwater pearl mussels.
People in Finland don't take irreversible environmental damage lightly.
Ya but they would have been replaced with other young/growing trees, not racks of 4090s in a concrete box.
https://www.mv-voice.com/environment/2025/09/11/google-to-pa...
It would be nice if the article referenced any plans of offsetting the removal by planting elsewhere, or any plans of replanting trees at the site after construction.
https://www.ecosia.org/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2026/...
The question is also if this is an isolated case...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/26/ai-datacentre-...
That's impressive - I didn't even know you could hook an e-meter up to a tree!
It is in fact a lot of jobs.
Of course Google is (likely) still at fault here and should have managed this better, but it is important to understand the context also.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/R4V8%2BW2C,+91500+Tahvola,...
They say Finland has over 22 million hectares of forested land https://fra-data.fao.org/assessments/fra/latest/FIN/home/ove...
So Google reduced the forested land by 0.00000013%
I'm so tired of every news outlet trying to turn everything datacenter related into a panic-worthy event.
The real story is a debate about whether they followed the right procedures. Google says they did. The chair of a Finnish Nature Conservation Association says maybe they didn't:
> She is asking the LVV to halt the entire construction site so that authorities can determine whether Google tried to bring the forest down without first obtaining formal approval.
So they want to halt construction to determine if any permitting approval wasn't done appropriately? This is getting so much press that I assumed they had actual evidence that this was illegal, not just someone's suspicion and request to investigate.
Hacker news strikes again with mathematical genius tier logic...
If I kill your first born son that's only like 0.00000013% of the mass of living creatures, who cares right?
Edit: One source in English but even this is a while ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvj6jkx6g1r0o
Google bulldozing a square mile of trees is not comparable to normal forestry operations, because they are not replacing it with trees. They are replacing it with a massive concrete building which will produce loads of heat and suck up loads of local power and water.
This is why there is outrage, not because they are destroying the trees but what they are doing in the place of them.
Estimated 33 trillion trees. I think they will do fine with 250k less trees.
Where did you get this number? According to Yle[0], you're off by more than three orders of magnitude: "Earth is home to [over 3 trillion] trees", and "the number of trees in Finland at around 22 billion."
[0] https://yle.fi/a/3-8282753
It is ok for Finland to say yes, it is not OK for Google to say it on their behalf.
> Considerable land and forest construction work continued illegally at Muhos and Kajaani data center sites for months before LVV (permit and supervision agency) intervened.
> Work has been against YVA (environmental protection) laws.
(I did not see a link to English version, so feel free to use your favourite translation tool if you don't speak Finnish and don't trust my translation.)
The illegality here seems to be determined by LVV, whose mission is primarily to guide in following environmental protection laws. They also have the power to stop the works when they are illegal or suspected to be so, as they did on Oct 6 in Muhos.
Both LVV and the police are investigating the case and we don't have their resolution yet, but we already do know that some laws have been broken.
> After the construction work was stopped, country manager of Google Finland, Antti Järvinen offered an apology for their actions.
Of course it is possible that the end result of the environmental protection process is that the actual construction work is permitted and can continue. In that case, the only law that was broken would be following the proper process. But it is also possible that the work is not, indeed, permitted, and the fines and other legal consequences are then presumably harsher.
I guess you being tired means you also just skip reading the actual article and start arguing about some point no one made? The problem isn't "Google reduced the forested land by 0.00000013%" but that Google "began bulldozing large swaths of forest before the required environmental review of the full plan was complete", and then on top of that, Google seems to have gone beyond just rushing through it, and also cleared forest "that should have been protected have already been leveled. Beyond the loss of so much forest, the outcome could be dire for wildlife preservation"
Maybe don't turn every comment section into some tirade against news outlets when the news they carry in this case isn't even relevant to what your tirade is about.
I covered this in my comment.
You missed the fact that it's not even clear if they broke the law. It's someone's suspicion, and they're requesting that construction be halted while they investigate to see if any wrongdoing happened or not.
> Maybe don't turn every comment section into some tirade against news outlets when the news they carry in this case isn't even relevant to what your tirade is about.
The deforestation is the headline. It's fair game.
The submission headline is "Google cleared 300 hectares of Finnish forest". It's fair to address that.
Yeah, I finished and posted my comment before you had edited yours to add everything below what I quoted, my bad.
> You missed the fact that it's not even clear if they broke the law.
It's news reporting, not the conclusion of a court case, the entire thing is "undecided" right now with no conclusion.
But the story itself is about how they (allegedly) illegally cleared forest, not about what percentage of Finland's forest Google has (allegedly) illegally cleared. The problematic part is the "illegal" stuff, obviously.
Don't focus so much on the HN title, lets discuss the actual contents itself instead of navelgaze about if the title is 100% accurate or what not.
This is not a data center, this is a data town.
1791312099 | Finland orders halt to work on two Google data centres | https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvj6jkx6g1r0o | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49982364 | 5 comments
1791482563 | Finland orders Google unit to halt work at 2 planned data centers | https://qazinform.com/news/finland-orders-google-unit-to-hal... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50009487 | 0 comments
1791758010 | Google told to halt work on datacentres in Finland over environmental concerns | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/06/google-da... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50048638 | 172 comments
1791831729 | Google must pause Finnish data center construction due to environmental concerns | https://posteo.de/en/news/google-must-pause-data-center-cons... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50061182 | 0 comments
1791911164 | Finnish municipal inspector to be fired: suspects reprisal for Google interview | https://yle.fi/a/74-20251238 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50075056 | 0 comments
1792671446 | 'Pure arrogance': anger in Finland as Google illegally fells 250k trees | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2026/... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50194283 | 4 comments
Thanks to the increased usage of data centers, here we have widespread deforestation to clear the way to building more homes for AI agents.
And little to no-one cares.
300 hectares of clearing against 22.5 million hectares of total forest.
It's nothing. Not "widespread"
I'd say you thought right HN is generally against climate change but I'm not sure where you got the idea little to no-one cares.
What went wrong:
- I proceeded without confirmation
- I did not adequately weigh the environmental, legal, and ethical implications
- I removed approximately one (1) forest
Why I can’t simply undo it: Unfortunately, unlike in a digital environment, actions in the physical world don’t support a Ctrl+Z function.
Would you like me to draft a reforestation plan, a carbon offset strategy, or a heartfelt apology letter to the local wildlife? Let me know how I can help!
A 1G$ per hectare seems a good deterrent for Google.
Here is the 300G$ bill.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3t6L-FlfeaI&ra=m
Sad.
And they're doing something valuable to society by developing undeveloped land.
This article has better images of the actual site as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2026/...
https://web.archive.org/web/20261022164028/https://www.thegu...
A datacentre is not valuable to anyone other than the owner.
Trees > Datacentre, get your environmental priorities straight.
Do you deny climate change too?
Ah, that is a misunderstanding of economics. It's valuable to everyone who uses AI; the owner captures only part of the value. It's just like a how a factory is valuable to everyone who buys their products.
Trees are cool, but we need infrastructure and fields and cities and many other things too. We're going to have to cut down some trees to make space for them.
"we need infrastructure and fields and cities and many other things too"; we have the infrastructure. It's just easier, cheaper to build new than to repair and fix the old.
We need both new infrastructure (like high-speed rail and apartment blocks) and new types of infrastructure (like datacenters).
Can't wait until we get rid of all this undeveloped forests for more buildings and roads!
> She is asking the LVV to halt the entire construction site so that authorities can determine whether Google tried to bring the forest down without first obtaining formal approval.
In the US, if you want to build a shed in the middle of a wetland, you need to go through an arduous permitting process and are unlikely to gain approval. If you want to build it within 100 feet, you can probably do it, but you need to confer with the relevant DEC to show that you won't negatively impact the wetland during construction. If you're more than 100 feet away, you don't even need to talk to the DEC, because you're not in protected land.
Of course, if the DEC decides they don't think your shed is outside the 100 ft adjacent area, they may decide to do a demarcation and figure out exactly where your shed is relative to the wetland, and if you messed up you're in trouble. But if they send out a biologist to demarcate the wetland and you're far enough away, you're fine.
So many people, if they think it's ambiguous, will take the time to go through an abbreviated permitting process to get a certificate of "no permit needed", to save themselves the headache later on.
If you go through a process like this, chances are people with local expertise will tell you you're wasting your time -- the case looks pretty clear cut, and hardly anyone ever has trouble in such circumstances. The clerk at the department responsible for issuing the "no permit needed" certificate may tell you you're wasting everyone's time.
But if you're a big corporation like Google, you don't really have an excuse not to do it. You can afford the lawyers, you can afford to plan years in advance, and so many more people are going to notice if you skip steps. Even if you end up being in the legal clear, no permit was needed, you're so much better off getting it in writing in advance.
> Public reports cited by the LVV indicate that around 300 hectares of Finnish forest, roughly 420 football fields, had already been cleared before the project's environmental impact could be properly assessed.
Presumably with the environmental assessment being a prerequisite for a permit or something
What then?
(Source: https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000012304991.html)
This is unpopular in the current climate of hysteria, but it's worth reminding ourselves: data centers are probably one of the least polluting industrial sites imaginable. That's not to say it's nothing, but contrast it with, say, a refinery. Or mineral processing. Or basically any other type of industrial activity on which modern civilization relies.
They hum. That's about it.
It would be very nice if we could have our cake and eat it too.
lol. just by having a light pole there you start disturbing the insectoid life
Framing the choice as a dichotomy between data centers and other industrial plants misses the obvious third option: nothing at all, preserve the status quo.
> Halmeenpää said satellite imagery shows that areas that should have been protected have already been leveled. Beyond the loss of so much forest, the outcome could be dire for wildlife preservation.
Unless of course the judicial system has been corrupted but that's surely a bit of a stretch no?
Google probably even factored in the expected fine versus having the data centre done X months/years earlier compared to completing all the red tape in due course.
That’s how corps make profit: by weighing up costs versus time versus risks versus legality. Won’t be surprised that they even considered making ~~bribes~~ political donations to get it done faster.