CEO’s need to be made personally responsible for the crimes of their corporation.
I gotta ask though, what did they expect google to do there? It’s not like the sale of that land wasn’t known to the government. And they did make their intentions known about building on the site. Sounds like they failed to file the proper paperwork that would have gotten approved anyway. And how does no one notice before 250k trees get cut down and the land graded. This wasn’t a few days of work here. This plays like local politicians green light all this, and once the people found out and weren’t happy, they are trying to divert the anger. And really, there should be enough anger for all involved.
Yeah, good, anger, ok… is Finland gonna take action though?
Since you clearly haven’t been paying attention: No, no action will be taken. See, there’s two systems of justice in the world. One for the poors and one for the rich. If you’re rich, you can do whatever you want. If you’re poor you will get thrown into jail for things like eating pudding cups behind the counter of your minimum wage job if you don’t pay for them. Google is rich so they will likely be told they’re bad boys and not to do it again with a “Tee hee” at the end followed by a stern finger wag.
So cancel the project.
But money
Does any one have good ideas on how to effectively sabotage these monstrosities? We may not be able to prevent their construction but we can certainly make it painful to keep them running. Could be as simple as digging and finding fiber optics to sever? A way to cut power, or cause Data loss? We need plans
Stop using it. No demand will decrease the supply.
So I happen to know that these data centers are being built so fast that the substation manufacturers can’t keep up with the orders for indoor substations and Google specifically has switched their choice to outdoor substations.
This means THEORETICALLY if you find some way to disperse fragments or powder of metal across the exposed conductors of outdoor substation components like circuit breakers, transformers, etc. you could cause anything from a shutdown for cleaning and maintenance to a full on arc fault that would cost them $100,000’s to low millions to replace.
Just saying in a hypothetical scenario anyone tries this, make sure you are nowhere near close to the power lines you short, an arc flash can legit fry you even if you are away from its arc path
And don’t forget about Arc explosions; if the arc is powerful enough it could create a pressure wave which, aside from carrying nearby debris as lethal shrapnel, would be enough to kill you on its own by rupturing your organs.
I heard they need water and electricity from the outside… there must be pipes somewhere…
if the DATACENTER suddenly become sponataneous combust some how.
Yes, but most people won’t engage.
How long to regrow? Every year it takes to regrow they should pay a fine (with interest)
The main issue here has less to do with the forest being felled, and more to do with the incorrect management of things like wastewater and possible endangered habitats. These things are mostly an issue in areas that are zoned. Outside the zoned areas most of Finnish forest is actively managed for forestry and is cut clear and replanted periodically over 40-90 years depending on latitude and type of forest.
Google would’ve gotten the rights to cut if they just bothered to wait a bit and fill in the required paperwork. In most of Finland you just tell the government you’re going to cut down a forest and get working. Instead they chose to expedite the process and are now being criticized for that purpose.
Typically forests aren’t clear-cut to that extent at a single time, and the top soil remains in place. The scale has a danger of rain washing off the soil and adding nutrients to the nearby river and thus the baltic sea as well. Those should’ve been properly managed and planning that management was the part they skipped. The forest would’ve become timber and other products in due time anyway (which it now won’t since it’s not legally cut).
decades, Old growth forest protects against intense fires better, because they are taller, some species of conifer shed thier lower branches so fires dont affect the crown. i think younger ones might be more prone to disease/fires. i was in an eco class once.
so if you have bunch of new trees, younger one the shorter ones catch on fire , can destroy the older tall trees.
Well, Finnish forests are heavily forested and the cut down area was likely farmed/planted as well. They wouldn’t have managed to purchase the land for this purpose if there were actual old growth trees there, only few such places remain.
The environment around the forest matters more, e.g. rivers, ditches, swamps and so on. Most forests here are cut every 40-90 years and replanted after cutting.
Earlier this month, Google was ordered by the Finnish Licensing and Supervision Authority (LVV) to temporarily stop work on Muhos and another site about 100km south-east in the village of Otanmäki after it failed to complete the necessary environmental impact assessments before clearcutting the land
To be fair, it’s easier to assess the environmental impact of the clear-cutting after finishing the clear-cutting.
Isn’t “environmental impact assessment” just a payoff nowadays?
If they did this illegally, what will be the consequences?
Let them plant trees at a CO2 consuming equivalence level, I.e. if they plant younger trees, they have to plant more.
A lot of these “planting trees” initiatives are bogus. Planting 100000 of the same tree in an area doesnt guarantee they grow, nor does it help the environment at all when they succumb to a disease/pest in a few years
yea i always questioned is a native tree, no in most cases, the tree dies due to not adapted to the environment it is in. they likely choose a fast growing tree.
I was more referring to acres and acres of monocultures, but yes, thats also an issue.
I’m not saying this to defend Google in any way, because what they’ve done is reprehensible. However, trees build most of their mass when they’re young. Therefore, they consume more CO2 early in their lives. It’s how they get the carbon to build with.
The damage here is habitat destruction.
That combined with a massive fine adjusted to their annual revenue, and a country wide ban on them deploying any data centers would be a start.
At this point, why not? Literally: who is going to stop them? Gonna fine them the equivalent of $0.00001? Say goodbye to your trees.
The law has proven toothless against the world’s greatest criminals. So, now what?
So, now what?
Cars might hit powerstations by accident.
It’s just a toll that was factored in before they started when they ran the numbers to see if it would be worth it
Be evil
I want a shirt that says in “google font”:
Don’tbe evilAsk and you shall receive
This is insane. No one wants this shit
