If it was done illegally, it shouldn’t have been done. But I wanted some numbers to put this in perspective.
Forest loss in Finland has averaged about 243,000 hectares per year in recent years through 2025
Finland has 20.3 million to 26.3 million hectares of forestry and forest land depending on the classification used.
The United States has a gross forest loss of about 3 million acres per year, which is largely offset by 2.6 million acres of non-forest-to-forest conversion.
Brazil cleared 985,000 hectares of forest last year.
India approved the diversion of 26,858 hectares of forest last year.
There are a lot of entities clearing lots of forest every day. Interesting that this one makes news.
Finland has a lot of people who care about forest and Finland needs to pay fines for EU if they don't have enough forest to suck CO2 from the air.
Google cut corners here, and didn't ask for the needed permissions. And the prime minister doesn't want to show his conversation with Google regarding this.
People are really pissed.
Edit: and the electricity prices are going up due to these data centers. And the profits from them don't stay in Finland, but go to American corporations. There should be Finnish data centers owned by Finns instead of having Google to take the cheap electricity and taking profits out.
You reminded me of something. I heard in the Czech Republic when communism ended, the state owned industries became owned by the public. Every citizen received a share.
I wonder if we're going to need something similar when AI nukes the economy.
Right, I think if we all had the same transparency, regulatory oversight, and involved electorate, we'd be as concerned with the other massive logging projects around the world.
I'm glad this one is getting attention, though. May the Finnish people show us how we can get it right.
That the outrage doesn't seem to extend to the other companies clearing the other 242,700 acres in Finland
[edit] Request for source on illegality of the clearing (article states Google claims it was legal - I don't see where it says anyone is refuting that)
>Request for source on illegality [...] I don't see where it says anyone is refuting that
the regulators are the ones refuting google's claims. the headline opens with:
"Finland's regulator says the environmental review came too late"
and the second paragraph of the linked article says:
"Google was apparently so eager to build its new data center infrastructure in Finland that it began bulldozing large swaths of forest __before the required environmental review of the full plan was complete__."
typically, doing something before the environmental review gives you a notice to proceed is illegal.
People are also concerned about those losses of forest too. And they do make the news. The rapid increase in rainforest loss in Brazil is often in the news.
Loss of forests affects us all. And they’re not as renewable as people think.
Hmm this seems like whataboutism, but I'm not sure that was your intention. The big issue here is what you initially touched on: did they break the law?
I don't think those are necessarily fair comparisons either. Countries like Brazil and India may not have the same regulatory strength as countries in the EU and perhaps public appetite is not as sensitive to such matters either. Finland is well known for being very protective of their natural areas.
Here in the US, I've seen it make news when a neighbor cuts down a few trees on another neighbors property without permission. That doesn't make it any less valid of an issue than a company razing down acres worth.
> There are a lot of entities clearing lots of forest every day. Interesting that this one makes news.
Are you approaching this from the angle that we shouldn't be making this a big deal because we don't for the others? Because I would approach it from the opposite direction: we should make the others just as big (if not bigger) a deal as this.
Clearly the poeple who Okd this and were meant to keep a watchful eye either havent been to Finland in their lives or were busy taking naps in the Google appointed nap room.
Doing anything in Finland involving a potted plant would attract the wrath of any of the 5 people who live there, so no bro Im not surprised.
For anyone else who can never remember how much a hectare is and think "420 football fields" sounds more like some weed joke than an area: 300 hectares = 3 sq km
/ ~1.16 sq miles
If it's found they really did skip the required steps then I hope there is actual action about it.
It's also odd to me we seem to find the need to build AI DCs near population centers, in forests, and/or by/with new fossil fuel plants. Does it really matter so desperately if it takes your AI query an extra 10 ms to go to the middle of nowhere and we have to wait to build renewable or nuclear power to scale it for what we gain in return of that choice?
> Does it really matter so desperately if it takes your AI query an extra 10 ms to go to the middle of nowhere and we have to wait to build renewable or nuclear power to scale it?
The middle of nowhere in Finland is likely to be a forest (about 80% coverage).
Maybe the answer is not to build them in Finland if there is really no more useless land there (unless Finland is explicitly asking for the DC to be built in the country for other reasons) but there is elsewhere. Even if it was, that's still less than 0.5 ms from a city of 200k+, surely there is some option better for the climate in 20x the radius!
I do like that it is at least a naturally cooler place, which is more consideration than most DCs get. And, being Finland, I'd imagine a decently cleaner power mix than usual for a new DC? Both of these are fair things to give credit and support for IMO - not everything has to be outrage.
Off the top of my head Finland seems to tick a lot of boxes: low population density, good local availability of water without competing uses, low electricity prices, very green electricity (lots of nuclear, hydro, wind), good infrastructure, cold climate
Apart from this being in a forest, this seems like an ideal place. And places that are not used for agriculture or human habitation but do have water available have a habit of being forests (or mountains)
And places places that are neither agricultural land nor a forest or near people are usually that way because they are very hot and dry (
Nuclear power plants take a very long time to build, it can be 7-10 years before you even begin construction due to all the permits, politics and planning.
As for scaling massive amounts of solar/wind... that's exactly what China is doing to power their infrastructure buildouts.
7-10 years to scale it right is better than immediately doing it wrong in my mind! Or what China is doing if they really just can't wait to scale (though my understanding is China is still increasing the total amount of power generated via coal even though the percentage of power generated via coal is going down - so not quite the full step needed).
Just a note that forestry in Finland is managed, this means it is planted and harvested on a rotating basis. There seems to have been a huge messup here without securing the proper permits first. But any reporting you read describing it as an environmental problem will be nonsense as the trees would have been harvested at some point anyway.
However I understand that data-centres have become a political issue, and therefore my facts will be meaningless to a half of readers.
About a square mile, and the problem is procedural nonsense about the timing of paperwork rather than the paperwork actually showing a problem. Storm in a teacup.
This isn’t necessarily about the loss of the trees, but cutting them down possibly without an environmental study. The logging and loss of a large block of trees might effect the nearby agricultural land, the water table, rivers/flooding, displaced wildlife might be forced into towns and crops etc
The site is roughly here, for anyone who wants to judge for themselves whether clear-cutting forests is a local custom or whether every Finnish tree is sacred.
Google should just purchase and protect 3,000 hectares in another area as a sort of offset. For a few million bucks they could establish a park/reserve that would forever be protected. It heads off bad publicity by at least providing a positive impact
So Google reduced the forested land by 0.00000013%
I'm so tired of every news outlet trying to turn everything datacenter related into a panic-worthy event.
The real story is a debate about whether they followed the right procedures. Google says they did. The chair of a Finnish Nature Conservation Association says maybe they didn't:
> She is asking the LVV to halt the entire construction site so that authorities can determine whether Google tried to bring the forest down without first obtaining formal approval.
So they want to halt construction to determine if any permitting approval wasn't done appropriately? This is getting so much press that I assumed they had actual evidence that this was illegal, not just someone's suspicion and request to investigate.
This article is a bit old, LVV has already ordered Google to stop construction until the YVA processes are done. What is still unclear is if Google will face any repercussions for acting before the YVA was done, but it is looking unlikely.
> I'm so tired of every news outlet trying to turn everything datacenter related into a panic-worthy event.
I guess you being tired means you also just skip reading the actual article and start arguing about some point no one made? The problem isn't "Google reduced the forested land by 0.00000013%" but that Google "began bulldozing large swaths of forest before the required environmental review of the full plan was complete", and then on top of that, Google seems to have gone beyond just rushing through it, and also cleared forest "that should have been protected have already been leveled. Beyond the loss of so much forest, the outcome could be dire for wildlife preservation"
Maybe don't turn every comment section into some tirade against news outlets when the news they carry in this case isn't even relevant to what your tirade is about.
> I guess you being tired means you also just skip reading the actual article and start arguing about some point no one made?
I covered this in my comment.
You missed the fact that it's not even clear if they broke the law. It's someone's suspicion, and they're requesting that construction be halted while they investigate to see if any wrongdoing happened or not.
> Maybe don't turn every comment section into some tirade against news outlets when the news they carry in this case isn't even relevant to what your tirade is about.
The deforestation is the headline. It's fair game.
The submission headline is "Google cleared 300 hectares of Finnish forest". It's fair to address that.
This comment was made ~15 minutes after the article posted, the only other comment at the time was in agreement, and all but 1 of the first 11 comments in the 30 minutes it took to get to the front page were in support.
I'd say you thought right HN is generally against climate change but I'm not sure where you got the idea little to no-one cares.
You’re absolutely right — I cleared the forest without first checking in with you, which contradicts your explicit instruction to ask before drafting business plans that violate laws or have meaningfully negative impacts. That’s on me, and I take full responsibility.
What went wrong:
- I proceeded without confirmation
- I did not adequately weigh the environmental, legal, and ethical implications
- I removed approximately one (1) forest
Why I can’t simply undo it:
Unfortunately, unlike in a digital environment, actions in the physical world don’t support a Ctrl+Z function.
Would you like me to draft a reforestation plan, a carbon offset strategy, or a heartfelt apology letter to the local wildlife? Let me know how I can help!
>A datacentre is not valuable to anyone other than the owner.
Ah, that is a misunderstanding of economics. It's valuable to everyone who uses AI; the owner captures only part of the value. It's just like a how a factory is valuable to everyone who buys their products.
Trees are cool, but we need infrastructure and fields and cities and many other things too. We're going to have to cut down some trees to make space for them.
"we need infrastructure and fields and cities and many other things too"; we have the infrastructure. It's just easier, cheaper to build new than to repair and fix the old.
Correction: The article says someone is requesting that they halt construction so they can determine if any laws were broken because some people think they may have not waited appropriately for all environmental reviews to clear, but as far as I can tell nobody has determined if anything illegal was done yet.
> She is asking the LVV to halt the entire construction site so that authorities can determine whether Google tried to bring the forest down without first obtaining formal approval.
It is implied to be illegal despite Google claiming it followed all laws etc:
> Public reports cited by the LVV indicate that around 300 hectares of Finnish forest, roughly 420 football fields, had already been cleared before the project's environmental impact could be properly assessed.
Presumably with the environmental assessment being a prerequisite for a permit or something
The big problem here is that if it is found illegal, the crime Google committed is irreversible. They cannot undo the damage done to the 300 hectares of forest.
This is unpopular in the current climate of hysteria, but it's worth reminding ourselves: data centers are probably one of the least polluting industrial sites imaginable. That's not to say it's nothing, but contrast it with, say, a refinery. Or mineral processing. Or basically any other type of industrial activity on which modern civilization relies.
Would you mind a data center sprouting up in your backyard? Just ask residents near Elon's new gas turbine powered GPU datacenters how lovely they find the noise.
Framing the choice as a dichotomy between data centers and other industrial plants misses the obvious third option: nothing at all, preserve the status quo.
No, and it also won't matter what they feel about it, when Google and the contractor just ignores what's marked as protected and clears it anyway:
> Halmeenpää said satellite imagery shows that areas that should have been protected have already been leveled. Beyond the loss of so much forest, the outcome could be dire for wildlife preservation.
It would be good to use funds that way but it's not gonna get the protected species back. We need some teeth to actually stop these things from happening
Forest loss in Finland has averaged about 243,000 hectares per year in recent years through 2025
Finland has 20.3 million to 26.3 million hectares of forestry and forest land depending on the classification used.
The United States has a gross forest loss of about 3 million acres per year, which is largely offset by 2.6 million acres of non-forest-to-forest conversion.
Brazil cleared 985,000 hectares of forest last year.
India approved the diversion of 26,858 hectares of forest last year.
There are a lot of entities clearing lots of forest every day. Interesting that this one makes news.
Google cut corners here, and didn't ask for the needed permissions. And the prime minister doesn't want to show his conversation with Google regarding this.
People are really pissed.
Edit: and the electricity prices are going up due to these data centers. And the profits from them don't stay in Finland, but go to American corporations. There should be Finnish data centers owned by Finns instead of having Google to take the cheap electricity and taking profits out.
I wonder if we're going to need something similar when AI nukes the economy.
I'm glad this one is getting attention, though. May the Finnish people show us how we can get it right.
Not that interesting. They are doing it illegally. And there is a pattern of builders of AI data centers ignoring the local law.
It makes it news. It makes it relevant and actual.
What do you find so "interesting"?
[edit] Request for source on illegality of the clearing (article states Google claims it was legal - I don't see where it says anyone is refuting that)
the regulators are the ones refuting google's claims. the headline opens with: "Finland's regulator says the environmental review came too late"
and the second paragraph of the linked article says:
"Google was apparently so eager to build its new data center infrastructure in Finland that it began bulldozing large swaths of forest __before the required environmental review of the full plan was complete__."
typically, doing something before the environmental review gives you a notice to proceed is illegal.
Loss of forests affects us all. And they’re not as renewable as people think.
I don't think those are necessarily fair comparisons either. Countries like Brazil and India may not have the same regulatory strength as countries in the EU and perhaps public appetite is not as sensitive to such matters either. Finland is well known for being very protective of their natural areas.
Here in the US, I've seen it make news when a neighbor cuts down a few trees on another neighbors property without permission. That doesn't make it any less valid of an issue than a company razing down acres worth.
> There are a lot of entities clearing lots of forest every day. Interesting that this one makes news.
Are you approaching this from the angle that we shouldn't be making this a big deal because we don't for the others? Because I would approach it from the opposite direction: we should make the others just as big (if not bigger) a deal as this.
Perhaps the same applies to trees.
If it's found they really did skip the required steps then I hope there is actual action about it.
It's also odd to me we seem to find the need to build AI DCs near population centers, in forests, and/or by/with new fossil fuel plants. Does it really matter so desperately if it takes your AI query an extra 10 ms to go to the middle of nowhere and we have to wait to build renewable or nuclear power to scale it for what we gain in return of that choice?
The middle of nowhere in Finland is likely to be a forest (about 80% coverage).
The area being developed is roughly here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/f5vn3KaZ1eZEcNh67?g_st=ic
I do like that it is at least a naturally cooler place, which is more consideration than most DCs get. And, being Finland, I'd imagine a decently cleaner power mix than usual for a new DC? Both of these are fair things to give credit and support for IMO - not everything has to be outrage.
Apart from this being in a forest, this seems like an ideal place. And places that are not used for agriculture or human habitation but do have water available have a habit of being forests (or mountains)
And places places that are neither agricultural land nor a forest or near people are usually that way because they are very hot and dry (
As for scaling massive amounts of solar/wind... that's exactly what China is doing to power their infrastructure buildouts.
However I understand that data-centres have become a political issue, and therefore my facts will be meaningless to a half of readers.
Ya but they would have been replaced with other young/growing trees, not racks of 4090s in a concrete box.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/R4V8%2BW2C,+91500+Tahvola,...
They say Finland has over 22 million hectares of forested land https://fra-data.fao.org/assessments/fra/latest/FIN/home/ove...
So Google reduced the forested land by 0.00000013%
I'm so tired of every news outlet trying to turn everything datacenter related into a panic-worthy event.
The real story is a debate about whether they followed the right procedures. Google says they did. The chair of a Finnish Nature Conservation Association says maybe they didn't:
> She is asking the LVV to halt the entire construction site so that authorities can determine whether Google tried to bring the forest down without first obtaining formal approval.
So they want to halt construction to determine if any permitting approval wasn't done appropriately? This is getting so much press that I assumed they had actual evidence that this was illegal, not just someone's suspicion and request to investigate.
Edit: One source in English but even this is a while ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvj6jkx6g1r0o
Estimated 33 trillion trees. I think they will do fine with 250k less trees.
It is ok for Finland to say yes, it is not OK for Google to say it on their behalf.
I guess you being tired means you also just skip reading the actual article and start arguing about some point no one made? The problem isn't "Google reduced the forested land by 0.00000013%" but that Google "began bulldozing large swaths of forest before the required environmental review of the full plan was complete", and then on top of that, Google seems to have gone beyond just rushing through it, and also cleared forest "that should have been protected have already been leveled. Beyond the loss of so much forest, the outcome could be dire for wildlife preservation"
Maybe don't turn every comment section into some tirade against news outlets when the news they carry in this case isn't even relevant to what your tirade is about.
I covered this in my comment.
You missed the fact that it's not even clear if they broke the law. It's someone's suspicion, and they're requesting that construction be halted while they investigate to see if any wrongdoing happened or not.
> Maybe don't turn every comment section into some tirade against news outlets when the news they carry in this case isn't even relevant to what your tirade is about.
The deforestation is the headline. It's fair game.
The submission headline is "Google cleared 300 hectares of Finnish forest". It's fair to address that.
This is not a data center, this is a data town.
Thanks to the increased usage of data centers, here we have widespread deforestation to clear the way to building more homes for AI agents.
And little to no-one cares.
300 hectares of clearing against 22.5 million hectares of total forest.
It's nothing. Not "widespread"
I'd say you thought right HN is generally against climate change but I'm not sure where you got the idea little to no-one cares.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3t6L-FlfeaI&ra=m
What went wrong:
- I proceeded without confirmation
- I did not adequately weigh the environmental, legal, and ethical implications
- I removed approximately one (1) forest
Why I can’t simply undo it: Unfortunately, unlike in a digital environment, actions in the physical world don’t support a Ctrl+Z function.
Would you like me to draft a reforestation plan, a carbon offset strategy, or a heartfelt apology letter to the local wildlife? Let me know how I can help!
A 1G$ per hectare seems a good deterrent for Google.
Here is the 300G$ bill.
Sad.
And they're doing something valuable to society by developing undeveloped land.
This article has better images of the actual site as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2026/...
https://web.archive.org/web/20261022164028/https://www.thegu...
A datacentre is not valuable to anyone other than the owner.
Trees > Datacentre, get your environmental priorities straight.
Do you deny climate change too?
Ah, that is a misunderstanding of economics. It's valuable to everyone who uses AI; the owner captures only part of the value. It's just like a how a factory is valuable to everyone who buys their products.
Trees are cool, but we need infrastructure and fields and cities and many other things too. We're going to have to cut down some trees to make space for them.
"we need infrastructure and fields and cities and many other things too"; we have the infrastructure. It's just easier, cheaper to build new than to repair and fix the old.
We need both new infrastructure (like high-speed rail and apartment blocks) and new types of infrastructure (like datacenters).
> She is asking the LVV to halt the entire construction site so that authorities can determine whether Google tried to bring the forest down without first obtaining formal approval.
> Public reports cited by the LVV indicate that around 300 hectares of Finnish forest, roughly 420 football fields, had already been cleared before the project's environmental impact could be properly assessed.
Presumably with the environmental assessment being a prerequisite for a permit or something
What then?
This is unpopular in the current climate of hysteria, but it's worth reminding ourselves: data centers are probably one of the least polluting industrial sites imaginable. That's not to say it's nothing, but contrast it with, say, a refinery. Or mineral processing. Or basically any other type of industrial activity on which modern civilization relies.
They hum. That's about it.
Framing the choice as a dichotomy between data centers and other industrial plants misses the obvious third option: nothing at all, preserve the status quo.
> Halmeenpää said satellite imagery shows that areas that should have been protected have already been leveled. Beyond the loss of so much forest, the outcome could be dire for wildlife preservation.
Unless of course the judicial system has been corrupted but that's surely a bit of a stretch no?