Finland’s Supervisory Agency (LVV) has told the company behind Google’s planned data centres in Muhos and Kajaani to suspend work that would “significantly alter the environment” by 23 October, after more than 300 hectares of forest were cleared, at one site without the mandatory environmental impact assessment. The developer has until 14 October to explain itself, or face enforcement proceedings.
The sites are part of the €13bn investment Google announced less than a month ago, its largest single investment in Europe, and Google says it “fell short” of its own standards and will follow the agency’s guidance. Interesting test of how far Nordic countries will bend environmental rules to win the AI data-centre race.
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
more than 300 hectares of forest were cleared
If I’d do that I would be in prison.
I would have hoped they did this before they cut down the trees.
In Google’s defense, they expected to be much further along before they got caught.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!”
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.
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.
