Every time it gets posted most assume that the forest was supposed to be protected and they decided to cut it down anyway.
The details are much less dramatic: The company doing the work messed up on a part of the approval process that was supposed to be completed first. It’s technically possible that the environmental impact review would come back with some obscure exception that required them to revise their plans, but it’s unlikely that anything was going to stop those trees from being cut down.
The 250K trees headline appears dramatic if you don’t know that Finland is covered in trees and cutting down a lot of them is part of building anything.
In the US there's also a third category besides "permit approved" and "permit denied", "no permit needed": the thing you are doing is allowed and not covered by the permitting process. You just do it. This shows up in both building code (you typically don't need a permit for most repairs or cosmetic renovations) and environmental protections (you don't need an environmental study for logging in a non-protected forest).
The tricky part with "no permit needed" is that while you can just go and do whatever, if someone charged with enforcement suspects you're doing something that requires a permit, they can still demand you prove you don't (and stop work until you do), and if you guessed wrong and you did indeed need a permit, you're double-fucked.
That's why for many of these processes, there's also something like a certificate of no-permit needed, where you go through an abbreviated permitting process spending a lot of time and money while all of the clerks and officials stare at you like you're a moron before finally giving you a piece of paper saying you didn't need to do any of that in the first place.
And that's why a lot of people with a lot of experience and a good understanding of the law skip getting a "no permit needed" certificate.
It also doesn't necessarily protect you from anything by obtaining it.
If you, say, go and get a certificate of no-permit needed when you're replacing all of your kitchen cabinets, and then you decide to move the sink while you're at it, you're back to still needing a permit for the plumbing change (and even if you aren't, if your neighbor calls the inspector and says they think you might be, the inspector might say, "no, we already know about that, it's just cabinets", or they might wonder if you are and then you're back in the situation you'd be in without the certificate).
A friend worked in the US tree cutting permit process. There were two main goals behind the permits (as I understand it):
1) To double check the harvest was not going to affect things outside their property (neighbors, land slides, erosion, etc), or special govt. interests on their property (endangered species)
2) To maintain their significant tax break. The break was for owning forest land, and you needed a plan to replant successfully.
Keep in mind that these are mostly 'working forests' that are more akin to wheat fields than wild forests.
It sounds like the issue was insufficient analysis of #1, resulting in excessive water run-off to neighboring privately owned property.
That being said, it could also be #2. The same friend worked on 'conversion' permits, wherein the owner asked to turn forest land into a residential or business property, and special considerations had to be addressed.
• You wouldn't need this kind of permit for clear-cutting 3.3 sq-km of forest, if the forest stays as forest (i.e. you will plant with tree seedlings)
• You need this permit when the land use changes (from forest to build area)
• The subcontractor might not have known that they are clear-cutting without all permits, or at least they might have plausible deniability
• The decision makers of the town of Muhos want the data center, as it bring jobs and taxable income
• The town building inspector had given a green light for Google to proceed
• Finland is, still, a high-trust society. Punishment for this kind of wrong-doing is likely lenient (some relatively small fines), the shame of having been sentenced in court is supposed to be the main deterrent in itself
• Thus, it might make financial sense for Google to cut corners and proceed faster, even if it means they end up paying some fines
• Unless the bad publicity ends up costing more than the saved project time
Yeah, and it's being done by a local contractor who presumably knows the process. It'll definitely be interesting if some moustache-twirling CEO at a foreign company is shown to have yelled "BURN THE FOREST DOWN, I WANT IT NOW!" at the contractor, but that feels unlikely in this case.
Google (through its local subsidiary) asked the regulators if they could skip doing an environmental impact assessment. The regulators told them that they could not skip doing it. They'd already started logging before asking for the exemption and continued to log for months after being told that there would not be an exemption.
They'd also applied for a landscaping permit for the site, but were denied one by the municipality because they'd still not performed the environmental impact assessment.
It's google trying to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, the news cycles making money on the cockup, and HN whiteknighting for Google because Google pays their wages directly and indirectly.
Funny thing is, if this "forest" is to be protected, why doesn't the govt buy/own the land? What an idiotic thing to say you plant trees in your land but you are not allowed to cut it. Don't approve of a data center in a land where you won't let them clear it. Bureaucracy must prevail!
Significant soil depth can be part of the solution, which no doubt requires additional strength in the structure underneath the roof..
For a worked example:
"The 5.4-acre green roof has soil depths that vary from 18 inches to 4.5 ft. This layered planting system is a structurally engineered component of the building that functions to balance seismic shifting, collect and filter stormwater, and irrigate the gardens. Geosynthetic fill was used to build up the rolling topography of the park while adding minimal weight to the structure."
That's the first thing that comes to mind here too. Very very very few contractors are going to do work without a permit. Maybe Finland needs to investigate their own government offices?
Google has a lot of subsidiaries all over the world that are very clearly NOT Google and never mind the fact that we only have one shareholder, whose name we unfortunately can not divulge. Employees are told on day one that they are NOT working for Google. They can never say they are working for Google, and they can't put that on their resume either. Google is to be referred to as 'the Customer'.
Tuike Finland is not a contractor. It's a Google subsidiary. Tuike Finland also has the auxiliary company name of "Google Technology Finland". Their official place of business is Ensontie 1, 49420 Hamina.
Trees, and their roots, are an essential part of water management. They absorb rainwater, help water infiltrate into the ground, replenishing groundwater supplies. They slow down surface runoff, reducing the risk of flooding, and provide shade and release water vapour via controlled evaporation.
The HN submission title is wrong and editorialised. Google is not being investigated for cutting trees. They're being investigated for environmental damage, including drainage and water management at the site. There's been reports of water running from the site out into the environment. The local residents have been worried over brown, muddy water streaming out from the clearance site into the surrounding nature (https://www.hs.fi/suomi/art-2000012327899.html).
This is what happens when you think you can skip the environmental assessment:
> “We had wolves coming into the village because all the wild animals moved out of the forest,” Anni Ranta, a resident of Otanmaki, told The Guardian. “They fled.”
What is the point? They will pay a fine and move on to their next exploit. Maybe the punishment should be to force them to spend as much money/time/effort as needed to regrow the entire forest, all 250,000 trees, and then some. Even if it takes 20-30 years - pay for reforestation, hire crews, pay for inspections/watchdogs to monitor etc
The real punishment arguably already happened. This could have been a feel-good project with lots of positive PR: a datacenter built far from major population centers, in a place with lots of available water that isn't used for anything else, in a country with relatively cheap electricity that is overwhelmingly produced from nuclear, hydro and wind. Amid all the negative datacenter PR it could have been a project Google could point to where every single objection has been addressed. Instead it has become a PR disaster that has been dragged through the news cycle and social media's outrage cycle.
Yes, Finland can also tighten the rules on future permits etc. But after all this, Google will simply pay a fine and look for another country/forest to exploit. It will also not bring back the 250K trees they destroyed.
Even if Google abandons the site and refuses to pay a fine, they’ll have lost all the money they have invested in site surveys, contracts, labor… even the delays alone of making them fulfill the EIS cost them money, not to mention whatever opportunity cost they were trying to minimize by flouting the environmental regulations.
You seem intent on arguing that enforcement of this cannot possibly matter. That kind of defeatism often wins Internet brownie points, but is not a useful way of actually being an effective force for change in the world.
The trees were being "destroyed" (harvested) anyway, that is why they were planted. I don't understand why certain types of people are struggling so hard with the facts of this case.
The issue doesnt seem to be the trees, thats more for headlines.
The real issue seems thay they didnt implement proper water mitigation which is about 100x more damaging and potentially hazardous than cutting down trees. You can see it in the photo, they arent building that complex with much concern for the surrounding environment.
I think this is a case of a misleading headline. Do the 250K trees even enter into this:
> Police said that, based on current information, there have been irregularities and shortcomings in drainage and water management at the data centre project's worksite
250K trees sounds like a lot, but Finland has like 20B trees, so it would take 3 hours for Finland to grow this back
how is it not? Finland cuts down hundred of millions of trees every year. they grow back, that's how their lumber industry works. Google presumably cut trees that were of a random age, not of harvesting age.
I realize it is seasonal, but the maths still works. distribute all trees in cohorts of three hours age. every three hours they move one up. every three hours there's 250k trees more over the entire range, allowing Finland to cut the mature trees to make paper.
Actually, that's exactly how forestry departments think of forest: how many (harvestable) volume units of wood grows per time unit. No cute, parental firefighting bear needed: Smokey doesn't like wildfires because burnt wood can't be sold.
While this is indeed not how trees work, it puts the number into a useful perspective.
Finland, comparable in size to Montana, is basically one huge forest (75% tree cover) dotted with lakes, and a lot of those forests are harvested every year. Of the entire EU, this is probably the place where trees are the least rare.
250 thousand trees cut down in England would have been a very different story.
Exactly. There's a whole gestation period where the mom tree carries the baby tree to term. Then the baby tree needs years to mature and develop. And because the dad tree was lost in the great google felling of 2026, the baby tree will be raised in a single tree family household, which will put additional strain on its development.
Growing stock volume: ~2.66B m^3
Annual volume increment: 103M m^3
Approximate number of trees: 20B
Implied average tree volume: ~0.1275 m^3
Volume of 250K trees: 250K x 0.1275 m^3 ~ 32K m^3
Time for remaining trees to grow that volume back: 32K m^3 / 103M m^3/year ~ 0.00031 years ~ 2.7 hours
Yes but the people concerned about this are clearly concerned about the environmental impact of losing forested land, not how many wood products are available.
I think he means, if an average tree adds say ~10g of wood per day, I had 20B trees and cut down 250000 of them, how long do the remaining trees take to grow back the wood that was lost from the trees that were cut down.
Turns out, if the trees lost are about 2000kg, it takes about ~ 2.5 days.
a. Even if this model were reasonable, removing trees isn't ameliorated by letting them grow back in 2.5 days. As an analogy, if I steal $100 from you, it's not reasonable for me to say, "But it only takes you x hours to earn that $100 back." No, you're out that $100.
b. Tree growth (eg, carbon sequestration) is non-linear. The first year of growth of a tree is much less productive than the 50th year.
Discussion on previous developments:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50194283
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50048638
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49968324
It's a weird story. There must have been dozens of approvals by the government for this project.
Every time it gets posted most assume that the forest was supposed to be protected and they decided to cut it down anyway.
The details are much less dramatic: The company doing the work messed up on a part of the approval process that was supposed to be completed first. It’s technically possible that the environmental impact review would come back with some obscure exception that required them to revise their plans, but it’s unlikely that anything was going to stop those trees from being cut down.
The 250K trees headline appears dramatic if you don’t know that Finland is covered in trees and cutting down a lot of them is part of building anything.
In the US there's also a third category besides "permit approved" and "permit denied", "no permit needed": the thing you are doing is allowed and not covered by the permitting process. You just do it. This shows up in both building code (you typically don't need a permit for most repairs or cosmetic renovations) and environmental protections (you don't need an environmental study for logging in a non-protected forest).
The tricky part with "no permit needed" is that while you can just go and do whatever, if someone charged with enforcement suspects you're doing something that requires a permit, they can still demand you prove you don't (and stop work until you do), and if you guessed wrong and you did indeed need a permit, you're double-fucked.
That's why for many of these processes, there's also something like a certificate of no-permit needed, where you go through an abbreviated permitting process spending a lot of time and money while all of the clerks and officials stare at you like you're a moron before finally giving you a piece of paper saying you didn't need to do any of that in the first place.
And that's why a lot of people with a lot of experience and a good understanding of the law skip getting a "no permit needed" certificate.
I am assuming it's similar in other countries.
> a certificate of no-permit needed
Amusing. It sounds like it's a permit to not need a permit.
It also doesn't necessarily protect you from anything by obtaining it.
If you, say, go and get a certificate of no-permit needed when you're replacing all of your kitchen cabinets, and then you decide to move the sink while you're at it, you're back to still needing a permit for the plumbing change (and even if you aren't, if your neighbor calls the inspector and says they think you might be, the inspector might say, "no, we already know about that, it's just cabinets", or they might wonder if you are and then you're back in the situation you'd be in without the certificate).
A friend worked in the US tree cutting permit process. There were two main goals behind the permits (as I understand it):
1) To double check the harvest was not going to affect things outside their property (neighbors, land slides, erosion, etc), or special govt. interests on their property (endangered species)
2) To maintain their significant tax break. The break was for owning forest land, and you needed a plan to replant successfully.
Keep in mind that these are mostly 'working forests' that are more akin to wheat fields than wild forests.
It sounds like the issue was insufficient analysis of #1, resulting in excessive water run-off to neighboring privately owned property.
That being said, it could also be #2. The same friend worked on 'conversion' permits, wherein the owner asked to turn forest land into a residential or business property, and special considerations had to be addressed.
• You wouldn't need this kind of permit for clear-cutting 3.3 sq-km of forest, if the forest stays as forest (i.e. you will plant with tree seedlings)
• You need this permit when the land use changes (from forest to build area)
• The subcontractor might not have known that they are clear-cutting without all permits, or at least they might have plausible deniability
• The decision makers of the town of Muhos want the data center, as it bring jobs and taxable income
• The town building inspector had given a green light for Google to proceed
• Finland is, still, a high-trust society. Punishment for this kind of wrong-doing is likely lenient (some relatively small fines), the shame of having been sentenced in court is supposed to be the main deterrent in itself
• Thus, it might make financial sense for Google to cut corners and proceed faster, even if it means they end up paying some fines
• Unless the bad publicity ends up costing more than the saved project time
Yeah, and it's being done by a local contractor who presumably knows the process. It'll definitely be interesting if some moustache-twirling CEO at a foreign company is shown to have yelled "BURN THE FOREST DOWN, I WANT IT NOW!" at the contractor, but that feels unlikely in this case.
Google (through its local subsidiary) asked the regulators if they could skip doing an environmental impact assessment. The regulators told them that they could not skip doing it. They'd already started logging before asking for the exemption and continued to log for months after being told that there would not be an exemption.
They'd also applied for a landscaping permit for the site, but were denied one by the municipality because they'd still not performed the environmental impact assessment.
It's google trying to ask for forgiveness rather than permission, the news cycles making money on the cockup, and HN whiteknighting for Google because Google pays their wages directly and indirectly.
A viscous cycle all around!
Closing the loop: google makes ad money on all the views these stories get
That can't be more than a few thousand dollars, compared to the millions they must be spending making this data center.
Funny thing is, if this "forest" is to be protected, why doesn't the govt buy/own the land? What an idiotic thing to say you plant trees in your land but you are not allowed to cut it. Don't approve of a data center in a land where you won't let them clear it. Bureaucracy must prevail!
I think they were expecting them to be replanted on the roof.
How do you grow trees on a roof without roots destroying the roof?
Add root barrier layers underneath the soil on top of the roof, and weed out tree species known to cause trouble..
See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_roof
Significant soil depth can be part of the solution, which no doubt requires additional strength in the structure underneath the roof..
For a worked example:
"The 5.4-acre green roof has soil depths that vary from 18 inches to 4.5 ft. This layered planting system is a structurally engineered component of the building that functions to balance seismic shifting, collect and filter stormwater, and irrigate the gardens. Geosynthetic fill was used to build up the rolling topography of the park while adding minimal weight to the structure."
From https://www.landscapeperformance.org/case-study-briefs/sales... under the "sustainable features" tab.
That's the first thing that comes to mind here too. Very very very few contractors are going to do work without a permit. Maybe Finland needs to investigate their own government offices?
Not to excuse things, but was this an industrial monoculture tree farm that they replaced with a data centre? This isn't "wild" forest, is it?
> this an industrial monoculture tree farm
That's how it looks like in the photos and videos and maps, yes.
https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000012304991.html
https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/miljardeja-euroja-ja-tuh...
https://www.tervareitti.fi/artikkelit/googlen-datakeskus-tul...
https://www.google.com/maps/@64.8361982,26.1427786,6855m/
I'm confused - isn't a contractor (Tuike Finland) doing and being responsible for this work?
Google has a lot of subsidiaries all over the world that are very clearly NOT Google and never mind the fact that we only have one shareholder, whose name we unfortunately can not divulge. Employees are told on day one that they are NOT working for Google. They can never say they are working for Google, and they can't put that on their resume either. Google is to be referred to as 'the Customer'.
Tuike Finland is subsidiary of Google.
Tuike Finland is not a contractor. It's a Google subsidiary. Tuike Finland also has the auxiliary company name of "Google Technology Finland". Their official place of business is Ensontie 1, 49420 Hamina.
https://www.finder.fi/IT-konsultointi+IT-palvelut/Tuike+Finl...
Notably, this is the address of Google Hamina Campus.
https://www.datacentermap.com/finland/hamina/google-hamina/
Thank you, that clears it up that it's indeed still Google. Oh, it's even said in the article.
Nothing will happen, calling it now.
Where does the linked article say anything about trees? It's about water management
Trees, and their roots, are an essential part of water management. They absorb rainwater, help water infiltrate into the ground, replenishing groundwater supplies. They slow down surface runoff, reducing the risk of flooding, and provide shade and release water vapour via controlled evaporation.
But the title claim of 250k trees never appears in the article...
The HN submission title is wrong and editorialised. Google is not being investigated for cutting trees. They're being investigated for environmental damage, including drainage and water management at the site. There's been reports of water running from the site out into the environment. The local residents have been worried over brown, muddy water streaming out from the clearance site into the surrounding nature (https://www.hs.fi/suomi/art-2000012327899.html).
Incorrect. While there are multiple issues, the cutting of trees is the main issue.
Welcome to the new Hacker News, nowhere is safe from the propaganda clowns.
This is what happens when you think you can skip the environmental assessment:
> “We had wolves coming into the village because all the wild animals moved out of the forest,” Anni Ranta, a resident of Otanmaki, told The Guardian. “They fled.”
https://fortune.com/2026/10/26/wolves-finland-google-1300-ac...
What is the point? They will pay a fine and move on to their next exploit. Maybe the punishment should be to force them to spend as much money/time/effort as needed to regrow the entire forest, all 250,000 trees, and then some. Even if it takes 20-30 years - pay for reforestation, hire crews, pay for inspections/watchdogs to monitor etc
The real punishment arguably already happened. This could have been a feel-good project with lots of positive PR: a datacenter built far from major population centers, in a place with lots of available water that isn't used for anything else, in a country with relatively cheap electricity that is overwhelmingly produced from nuclear, hydro and wind. Amid all the negative datacenter PR it could have been a project Google could point to where every single objection has been addressed. Instead it has become a PR disaster that has been dragged through the news cycle and social media's outrage cycle.
If Finland prohibits them from continuing construction, they don’t get the data center they want, and they have to start over somewhere else.
Yes, Finland can also tighten the rules on future permits etc. But after all this, Google will simply pay a fine and look for another country/forest to exploit. It will also not bring back the 250K trees they destroyed.
Even if Google abandons the site and refuses to pay a fine, they’ll have lost all the money they have invested in site surveys, contracts, labor… even the delays alone of making them fulfill the EIS cost them money, not to mention whatever opportunity cost they were trying to minimize by flouting the environmental regulations.
Google is already feeling pain from this.
How much money did they spend? A few million, few tens of millions perhaps? That is not even a rounding error for them.
Maybe the delay and opportunity cost caused them some pain, but whatever they invested in contracts, labor etc is probably pocket change for them
You seem intent on arguing that enforcement of this cannot possibly matter. That kind of defeatism often wins Internet brownie points, but is not a useful way of actually being an effective force for change in the world.
The trees were being "destroyed" (harvested) anyway, that is why they were planted. I don't understand why certain types of people are struggling so hard with the facts of this case.
The issue doesnt seem to be the trees, thats more for headlines.
The real issue seems thay they didnt implement proper water mitigation which is about 100x more damaging and potentially hazardous than cutting down trees. You can see it in the photo, they arent building that complex with much concern for the surrounding environment.
Trees can also provide soil stability. It’s possible that bulk razing this plot has turned it into a liquefaction zone.
See the previous comments for why it's a mostly fake story designed to make low-information people angry.
This. This would be real pain for them in terms of latency to launch.
I think this is a case of a misleading headline. Do the 250K trees even enter into this:
> Police said that, based on current information, there have been irregularities and shortcomings in drainage and water management at the data centre project's worksite
250K trees sounds like a lot, but Finland has like 20B trees, so it would take 3 hours for Finland to grow this back
> 250K trees sounds like a lot, but Finland has like 20B trees, so it would take 3 hours for Finland to grow this back
That's not how math.....or trees.....work.
how is it not? Finland cuts down hundred of millions of trees every year. they grow back, that's how their lumber industry works. Google presumably cut trees that were of a random age, not of harvesting age.
I realize it is seasonal, but the maths still works. distribute all trees in cohorts of three hours age. every three hours they move one up. every three hours there's 250k trees more over the entire range, allowing Finland to cut the mature trees to make paper.
Actually, that's exactly how forestry departments think of forest: how many (harvestable) volume units of wood grows per time unit. No cute, parental firefighting bear needed: Smokey doesn't like wildfires because burnt wood can't be sold.
While this is indeed not how trees work, it puts the number into a useful perspective.
Finland, comparable in size to Montana, is basically one huge forest (75% tree cover) dotted with lakes, and a lot of those forests are harvested every year. Of the entire EU, this is probably the place where trees are the least rare.
250 thousand trees cut down in England would have been a very different story.
even England has 2 billion trees or so though, way less than Finland but 250k trees is still not that much
Bro is using the Factorio model of resource reallocation.
Exactly. There's a whole gestation period where the mom tree carries the baby tree to term. Then the baby tree needs years to mature and develop. And because the dad tree was lost in the great google felling of 2026, the baby tree will be raised in a single tree family household, which will put additional strain on its development.
Single tree moms are less of a problem in the Nordics though. Programs like Head Saplings can help though.
Oh, that's just great. It'll turn into a juvenile delinquent tree, hiding behind other trees to leap out and scare unsuspecting hikers.
9 woman can't bring baby in a month. That 3 hour estimate makes no sense.
It may do so in the form of volume or weight in carpentry materiel or other wood products.
Yes but the people concerned about this are clearly concerned about the environmental impact of losing forested land, not how many wood products are available.
But ... but ... but 2240 women can bring a baby in 3 hours! Surely!
> 250K trees sounds like a lot
In this case, it's 3.3 sq-km (or 1.3 sq-miles) of forest.
What does the total number of trees in Finland have to do with the amount of time it would take to grow 250K tree back?
I think he means, if an average tree adds say ~10g of wood per day, I had 20B trees and cut down 250000 of them, how long do the remaining trees take to grow back the wood that was lost from the trees that were cut down.
Turns out, if the trees lost are about 2000kg, it takes about ~ 2.5 days.
Except:
a. Even if this model were reasonable, removing trees isn't ameliorated by letting them grow back in 2.5 days. As an analogy, if I steal $100 from you, it's not reasonable for me to say, "But it only takes you x hours to earn that $100 back." No, you're out that $100.
b. Tree growth (eg, carbon sequestration) is non-linear. The first year of growth of a tree is much less productive than the 50th year.