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.
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.