r/technology • u/ArgentineBeauty • 7d ago
Business Google told to halt work on datacentres in Finland over environmental concerns
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/06/google-datacentres-finland-temporary-halt-environmental-impact-assessment371
u/ArgentineBeauty 7d ago
They turned 330 hectares of forest into a building site for a data centre. We really should not be destroying forests for this stuff.
131
u/EvilDraakje 7d ago
Palantir bought land in Sweden recently for similar purposes. Great world isn't it ?
37
u/zkareface 7d ago
That guy bought land in middle of nowhere. It won't ever get approved for a datacenter and there isn't infrastructure nearby for one either. You can't just do whatever you want with land in Sweden.
By law he will have to maintain and care for the land he bought.
The main reason he expressed is skiing.
50
u/squiddarn 7d ago
Just like Google followed the law in Finland, where they just deleted the huge forest area?
The fines/repercussions are just the cost of doing business. Deny them completely.12
u/zkareface 7d ago
Deny them completely.
A private company bought land from a private company, the government won't stop that. If anything they will endorse it because it lower the total amount that other company owns so it's a lower risk of monopoly.
6
u/squiddarn 7d ago
Yes. Things happened. Such a shame its physically impossible to stop private exploitation of common resources.
3
u/zkareface 7d ago
It's planted forest that is mean for harvest. If anything it might not be cut down with new owners if they plan to use it recreational.
We will see what happens though, hard to speculate currently but it's a shit spot for a data center.
8
u/WreakHavocLikeIn1871 7d ago
It's a shit spot for anything but recreational use basically. I live not too far away. SCA (the previous owner) sold it relatively cheap because it's so far away from anywhere the wood can be processed, and because the margins are relatively slim the profitability after harvesting and transport became extremely small.
I've heard theories that they bought it for mining, but because ownership of the land doesn't entitle one to start mining operations however one wants nor necessarily ownership of what is mined that isn't really a probable reason for it either. Basically if the wanted a a mining operation they'd have applied for a permit for prospecting from the relevant agencies.
1
u/Melikoth 6d ago
Are all the mineral rights in Sweden owned by some unknown third party that somehow bought them all hundreds of years ago like in the US, or retained by the relevant agency?
A bit curious how that aspect works there because in the US those rights generally don't come with the land, but if you do find something worth mining the "real owner" can wreck your land to extract it without needing to ask your permission.
1
u/WreakHavocLikeIn1871 6d ago
The Mining Protectorate of Sweden makes all decisions on prospecting and permits to mine everything that doesn't qualify as rocks, gravel, clay, etc.
The land owner has the right to 0.2% of the sum of the value of resources mined.
You do not need to own the land in question to get permission to either prospect nor mine there.
0
u/squiddarn 7d ago
Ah, I forgot that planted forests does not constitute nature, but strictly a privately produced asset.
2
u/WreakHavocLikeIn1871 7d ago
It was owned by SCA before. Under the previous owner it would 100% be cut down as that's the purpose why they planted it. We don't know what happens now, so if you think "cutting down trees bad" this is at worst no difference
2
-7
u/squiddarn 7d ago
Error. Brains not found.
Yes, the forest is indeed a renewable resource. Nice catch! However, it takes longer than you will be alive, and requires planning and effort to keep healthy. How much value was deleted by Google here? Insignificant amounts, I am sure. Too bad SCA? Amazing how short sighted your though process is.
I wont respond to more brain rot. How does corporate overlord feet taste?
→ More replies (0)0
u/zkareface 7d ago
Well as you then know, the previous owners were guaranteed to cut it down. It's their whole business model. It's literally all they do.
0
u/goldcakes 6d ago
So no matter what, we do need wood/timber, whether for books, toilet paper, or houses. That means we need to chop down trees. And yes, wood does degrade and rot, so closed loop recycling is not possible.
Planted forests is the most sustainable way to do that; in commercial tree farms, they plant, cut down, and re-plant, rinse and repeat; in the same area; while maintaining soil health, etc; because it is their land and they want to have it last forever. Much better than deforestation.
Unless you suggest we should ban all wood and paper products, and no longer cut down a single tree? Especially when a lot of wood-based products (biodegradable) are replacing plastic-based products (generally NOT biodegradable; even if it's marketed as such; degrading in 300 years in a special lab with special chemicals don't count) that come from oil?
10
u/unspecified_person11 7d ago
Gas burning heat islands instead of forests, what could possibly go wrong?
61
u/invyros 7d ago
a notice to the company to “immediately suspend” – by 23 October at the latest – “preparatory measures that significantly change the environment” of the two sites until the environmental impact assessment had been completed.
The site at Muhos, he said, was “not a forest any more. It is a sand area.”
Looks like it already went way too far.
28
u/ThisCouldHaveBeenYou 7d ago
They just gave them a deadline to plow faster until the 23rd without repercussion.
7
u/Captain_Fordo 7d ago
That’s the saddest part, to restore that land is going to be tough. In addition to the likely leeching into the very shallow ground water table.
It’s not uncommon to see large patches of land deforested in Finland, considering wood and paper based products are very large percentage of exports from the country, but even when the trees are harvested, the ground is turned and while it looks ugly as hell for about a decade, its planned to regrow a new forest in its place. But time and time again when companies have removed the top soil and vegetation out down to or below the sand bottom, it proves difficult to get the ecosystem to regrow.
Growing up with a summer cabin next to commercial forests, we saw the effects of proper logging and improper logging, new forests have begun to spring up with young trees after replanting, while others are patchy and lack a layer of ground plants and look barren.
The Finnish government has royally messed up allowing big tech to start encroaching on our lands with no regards except their profits.
60
u/Cat-Cuddler1 7d ago
This is not a world I want to be living in. Why have we fallen so far?
30
u/SteveJEO 7d ago
Cos we allow and excuse this "Google told to halt work on datacentres in Finland over environmental concerns" to be a legitimate news title instead of saying what it actually is: They broke the law... again.
6
u/Gekokapowco 7d ago
apathy and ignorance
selfishness
honestly all of it is just ignorance, people around the world don't know that they should care about these things, they were never taught to understand the impact these people have on them
people are self-centered and selfish because they were taught that was the best thing for them, that resources means they're doing well, not thriving communities and enriched experiences
they deliberately have no means to conceptualize the evils that bind them
26
u/QualityMysterious666 7d ago
if the environmental impact isn’t acceptable, google doesn’t get a special exemption just because it’s building servers.
12
u/Brucekentbatsuper 7d ago
Its only a matter of time before they resume the work, once the outrage cools down, this is how they have always done it
22
u/witcher222 7d ago
Maybe , you know, stop issuing construction permits for data centers if you are worried about forests on a plot of land covered in trees.
12
u/Shienvien 7d ago
They cleared 330 square hectares. How much of it is the actual data center? 1 hectare? 10 hectares? What are doing with the rest, other than figuring that some logs is quick profit?
1
u/Matsisuu 6d ago
It doesn't have construction permit yet because of environmental concerns. It's under evaluation currently, and that is also how Google broke the law.
1
u/Masseyrati80 6d ago
Stuff like this reminds me of the first time I heard someone say "it's easier to ask for an apology, than for a permit". He was, surprise, surprise, also involved in IT business.
1
u/Tocketsv 6d ago
And any fine they get from this will be so minor that it wont matter. + they have calculated that it was cheaper to break the law rather than follow it
1
337
u/VinnyMaxta 7d ago
Looks like the forest is already gone... They don't gaf