No, you didn’t “fall short of your own standards”. You broke the law, on purpose. But maybe that is your standard.
Their standard is to get away with it. They fell short of that standard.
They are doing it all over the world too. 'Do it anyway and apologise if your caught' IS their standard.
more than 300 hectares of forest were cleared
If I'd do that I would be in prison.
In Google's defense, they expected to be much further along before they got caught.
When I heard Google was going to build more data centres in Finland, I thought they would perhaps already be aware that there are certain procedures and regulations over here, especially regarding the ecological impact, and they'd probably need to exercise the necessary caution here. I mean, they already have data centres here, they should know what it's like.
I did not expect them to be like "😃 let's get chopping boys 🪓 yeehaw" and the government would actually need to be like "😡 you can't do that" and then Google would need to be like "😣 well whoopsie daisy, we got a bit ahead of ourselves, sowwy 🥺".
But I guess the AI mania makes companies stupider in the ways that we all are familiar with by now.
It is not being stupid, it is testing if they can break the law and get away with it, like in their home vountry.
No, I would say it's slightly different.
The contractor, who knows the laws in the EU, has undoubtedly explained the need for the assessment, highlighted the time it would take and possibility of rejection of the assessment.
They have also undertaken some risk evaluation regarding the punishment, and as it is probably a fine in the low millions of euro per site, suggested to google that they can probably do it faster by jumping the gun on procedure, saving a larger amount on construction inflation.
If they're literally forced to replant those trees and care for them until they're back at the same size (so, for around 30 years), that would totally upend such calculations.
Personally I'm eagerly awaiting to see if Finnish Justice is a joke and just gives then the expected "cost of doing business" fine or if it actually forces them to undo the damage (i.e. replant the trees and care for them) thus reversing any and all gains they might have had from their unlawful actions.
I would wager the Finnish planning department doesn't have the appropriate tools to control this kind of project.
The only other entity historically building anything on this scale is the Finnish government itself.
The reality is this landscape is probably not of significant environmental value considering it was rezoned for industrial use, so replanting the same forest that blankets the entirety of northern Finland is not going to really be worthwhile.
It's not about the forest, it's about breaking Law in Finland not being treated as the cost of doing business.
Either it has to be so costly that it's not worth it (replanting the trees, losing those licenses or something similar with entirely undoes the benefit of the unlawful actions), the corporate veil that protects them has to be pulled back and the people who ordered this have to spend time in jail or, ideally, both.
If there's no deterrence from a Law, then it's functionally the same as that Law not existing, and a nation like that isn't really one with Rule Of Law.
You would never be jailed in Finland for removing farmed forest. I think you're going to be very disappointed with the penalty. The EIA will be written explaining the land is a farmed forest and the expected works. In the eyes of the bureaucracy this is going to be a procedural error and the project will likely continue, as there is no grounds to reject it.
If the individuals making the choices come out on the other side better than if they did not chose that way, then they will do the same choices again and again and again as will others who see them get away with it.
At one point in my career I worked in Investment Banking in Britain and it was painfully obvious that the business treated breaking regulations and the fines if caught as just another item in their cost-risk analysis spreadsheets (and it was totally logical for them to do so - apparently Britain is were most of the shenanigans in the time leading to, during and after the 2008 Crash in the World, and nobody ended up in jail and all the big banks got saved and kept paying massive bonuses even during the Austerity period).
So, yeah, if all that Finland does is some fines on the businesses, keeping the individuals making the choices insulated from the consequences and letting the businesses keep the upsides of their crimes, this shit will not just keep on happen but actually happen more and more.
I'd say it's pretty cut and dry (logging joke) here. If any harsher penalties come in, they will be for everyone after.
Which is why they should face jail time, and Google should face fines in the billions instead. That's the only way they'll consider following the law next.
And yes, people at Google should also face jail time if they were told "It's illegal" and they said "Do it anyway"
If companies are people jail time for ceo’s should be the punishment.
Exceot the, were wrong. Activity was stopped and this activity possibly added further complications.
I agree with one thing though, we need criminal prosecution against such things, not (only) fines.
vountry
uwu
But they asked AI and it said it's fine!
<thinking. . .>
"Oops! You're absolutely right to call me out on that one... Finland does seem to have laws like any other sovereign nation. My mistake!"
The Finnish Supervisory Agency (LVV) said work at one site was carried out without a mandatory environmental impact assessment and ordered measures that would "significantly alter the environment" to be suspended by 23 October.
to be suspended by 23 October.
23 October.
This is the 7th. How much forest can they clear in 16 days? Then an environmental impact assessment is no longer necessary because there is no environment!
The company said they're going to follow the recommendations and stand down ASAP. Which is great, because any kind of shenanigans they would pull at this point would be incredibly bad PR for them. The gov't agency is frowning at them, the municipal governments are saying "guys, you've got to fix this stuff", the media shall be watching them with great interest, and the public opinion, well...
This isn't USA, you can't just, you know, do shit here.
You just have to knock enough of it down so it all burns. In a world with cellphones, getting stop orders out immediately should be expected.
I’m reminded of the early US park service and conservation efforts. The government was trying to save old growth forests and the logging companies were setting up land sales and then clear cutting it before the ink dried. Basically moving faster than communications and travel in that time.
There's more to an EIS than tree clearing. Water quality, noise pollution, rate increases for power/water, aesthetic impacts, irretrievable resources (lost production of lumber/agriculture), wildlife, wetlands, erosion, socioeconomic impacts, coastal impacts... The EIS covers any short or long term effects the project may have and allows for both agency response and public comment.
Isn't Finland a country that likes to "percentage of income" fine?
popcorn.gif
Not sure the "benefits" are 300 hectares of destruction in an already fragile climate.
Don't really believe anything will happen and the data centers will be built because money can always bypass rules when you throw insane amounts of money at them.
I would have hoped they did this before they cut down the trees.
For US/UK readers this is the same tension as AI/cloud buildout vs grid reliability at home: who gets scarce power first — hyperscalers or everyone else?
Strongest case for the halt: keep residential and industrial supply stable through winter peaks. Strongest case against: delayed capacity costs local construction jobs and research compute.
Worth reading the primary outlet piece before taking a side; online reactions are not a poll of the country.
In the Finnish news it had been said that a part of the deal is google will bring their own electricity, and that this halt is due to ecological investigations
Yeah, bring their own electricity, i.e., from generation that was previously part of the national grid anyway. They have just bought up the supply.
Yeah that's what it says in OPs insert as well. The ecological impacts of clearing forests for the data centers and especially for the energy infrastructure they need is a major question here, but one that the politicians and authorities seem to be willing to overlook with this one case being the only exception so far.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/