Most of Finland's forests are planted. Some of that is for logging but also some of that is for conservation purposes. In Finland, all planted forests are native species.
But the whole controversy here is that they cut down some of the rare native old-growth forests. That's the part environmental groups are most upset about
That's just the Muhos site. Another 200 hectares at the Kajaani site.
Much of Finland's forest cover is planted forests which tend to be lower in biodiversity. But the controversy here is that Google also cut down a lot of really rare (and legally protected) native forests.
Some of what google cut down was indeed planted forest (which are always native species in Finland) but the entire controversy here is that google also cut down multiple protected areas of rare native forests.
Also planted forests are not just for logging purposes. Finland has been investing in GTR techniques that are specifically aimed at protecting and increasing native biodiversity so there is still conservation value in many of these planted forests
Much of it is planted forests (of native species). Some of those planted forests are for logging purposes and some of it is for GTR purposes to protect biodiversity.
A lot of what Google cut down was planted forests, but the crucial part here is they also cut down some really rare native forests.
You should say incalculable loss because Google cut down actual native forests that were legally protected. These forests are very rare and very biodiverse.
GP is spreading misinformation. Data center companies seem to have bot armies on HN nowadays
This is absolutely untrue and an overstatement of even Google's position in court. Google claims it was "mostly" planted. It's undeniable that tons of very rare native forests were cut down alongside this (we're talking about 815 acres in Muhos and 494 acres in Kajaani). Google very clearly intended to destroy them as quickly as possible to leave activists relying on old documents and unreliable datasets to make their claims. If they'd left those native forests it would have threatened the whole construction project.
Also much of those planted forests were GTR zones. These are planted forests that use GTR techniques to increase and protect native biodiversity.
It's also incorrect to say they were monocultures since they were mixes of native tree species.
> It's undeniable that tons of very rare native forests were cut down alongside this (we're talking about 815 acres in Muhos and 494 acres in Kajaani). Google very clearly intended to destroy them as quickly as possible to leave activists relying on old documents and unreliable datasets to make their claims. If they'd left those native forests it would have threatened the whole construction project.
What is your source?
Also, what is the meaning of "GTR" in Finnish or English? Google tells me nothing.
Green Tree Retention. It specifically means the practice leaving certain trees in these planted forests but its evolved to encompass much more research and practices.
This whole debate is happening because Google rushed to clear the sites before the EIA was completed which was meant to identify the sites of dense native forests. Google claims it did its own internal reviews and preserved a few crucial sites, but the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation, aka Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto, (which is the group that got work stopped) used satellite imagery to prove there were multiple dense native forest sites that also got cut down
Google's entire bet here is that it could turn this into a "procedural issue" of "woops, we didn't quite finish the EIA before we started. oh well, we'll just pay the fine" because they clearly knew there was plenty of protected dense native forest patches. They wanted to remove all the evidence of them as quickly as possible
> While Google argued the land was standard commercial forest harvested under the Forestry Act, local environmental groups—including the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto)—protested, claiming that indiscriminate logging had encroached upon native habitats and high-value nature sites that should have been preserved.
Also, even much of the planted forests were practicing GTR (Green Tree Retention) techniques which have been spreading in usage across Finland. It's a technique to increase native biodiversity. It is incorrect to state that these planted forests are purely for commercial purposes
And a lot of the non-native forests were explicitly government-protected rare native habitats.
We're talking about 815 acres at Muhos and another 494 acres at Kajaani. Call me cynical but it seems clear that making sure to get rid of the high value native forests and say "woops, sorry" was the strategy. If they'd left them, it would imperil the entire construction project. Now activists have the onus on them to prove how much was native vs planted from unreliable old datasets and imagery.
They said this, but then they went ahead and fought Finland in court. They claimed this was mostly planted forest but they also cut down plenty of native forest
That's the entire reason the court stopped construction. It's in the public documents. The ESA was supposed to identify any plots of old growth native forests (especially stuff like bogs and streams). Google rushed to cut everything down to remove any evidence of old growth habitats but they claimed that they did their own internal assessment beforehand and preserved a few of those sites. The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (aka Suomen luonnonsuojeluliitto) is the group that used satellite imagery to argue in court that they lied and that there were several native, protected strands that were NOT spared.
reply