Company ordered to stop work at two sites in country, which has found itself at forefront of tech firms’ latest push
  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    3·
    14 hours ago

    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.

    • redditStinksSuperBad@lemmy.world
      2·
      13 hours ago

      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.

  • king_comrade@lemmy.world
    10·
    1 day ago

    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

    • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
      8·
      17 hours ago

      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.

      • Maldreamer@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        17 hours ago

        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

        • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
          2·
          7 hours ago

          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.

    • 0x0@lemmy.zip
      1·
      14 hours ago

      I heard they need water and electricity from the outside… there must be pipes somewhere…

  • nanometer1625@thelemmy.club
    14·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • antimidas@sopuli.xyz
      2·
      16 hours ago

      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).

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      3·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • antimidas@sopuli.xyz
        1·
        16 hours ago

        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.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    29·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Funkt4st1c@lemmy.worldEnglish
      121·
      1 day ago

      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

      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        2·
        1 day ago

        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.

    • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
      141·
      1 day ago

      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.

    • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
      91·
      1 day ago

      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.

  • some_designer_dude@lemmy.worldEnglish
    291·
    2 days ago

    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?

  • r00ty@kbin.life
    421·
    2 days ago

    That’s because big businesses are hugely protected in multiple ways.

    First of all, if you or even your government opens a case against them, they will have large and talented legal teams capable of shutting down or at the very least delaying indefinitely most cases against them. Second of all, they are usually huge lobbyists for all major parties in most countries they operate in. That is, they are effectively able to buy access to legislation and protection against them. But third, and the final protection is that even if a case is opened against them, even if it has criminal ramifications with jail time, they will use one of the following to ensure those at the top stay safe. 1: You cannot prosecute a company beyond fines. Fines to a rich company just become a new line in their COGS report. 2: If they are pushed to find someone to prosecute, they will find some operational level sacrificial lamb to throw under the bus. “The buck stops here” doesn’t mean at the top. It means at anyone they can sucker into taking the fall.

    So, why should they care? What can any of us do about it?

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      12·
      1 day ago

      You know if government is pissed enough, they can make a law that fines Google a suitable amount. And prevent them from using the land they cleared, and even prevent them from building data centers in Finland at all.
      The idea that these giant companies are more powerful than a country is a joke. Of course they aren’t, but government can use that way of thinking as an excuse.

      • antimidas@sopuli.xyz
        1·
        16 hours ago

        Well, they can create a law to properly fine such things in the future. If current law doesn’t allow imposing a proper fine, it’s not possible to amend in a way that allows fining after that.

        At least in Finland you can only get punished according to the law that was in place when you did the act. Not any laws that were passed later. AFAIK the same is true in the US as well.

          • antimidas@sopuli.xyz
            1·
            12 hours ago

            I don’t know how it goes in the US, but in Finland the concept of lex praevia is set in the Finnish constitution.

            Section 8 Principle of legality in criminal law No one shall be held guilty of a criminal offence or be sentenced to a punishment on account of an act that did not constitute a criminal offence under law at the time when it was committed. The punishment imposed for an offence shall not be more severe than that provided by law at the time of commission of the offence.

            While the Finnish constitution is not set in stone, and can indeed be amended via a supermajority, there’s practically no government that would actually allow that kind of change to legislation. It’s obvious to anyone what breaking said principle would mean and strive for, and doing so would require at least four different parties to agree.

      • vaionko@sopuli.xyz
        1·
        19 hours ago

        Good thing the goverment is right wing corporate people. They’ll surely get very pissed off.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          1·
          14 hours ago

          Absolutely, which is why we shouldn’t make excuses for governments being accomplishes of cooperations based on traditional practices.
          Compared to the insanity around the world, the Finish government is mostly sensible though.

      • r00ty@kbin.life
        6·
        1 day ago

        Sure. Now tell me how often that happens? I never said a government couldn’t stop it. I made it clear that these companies have the governments in their pockets. The government could stop it, but they won’t. They like the money these corporations give them, far more than they like us.

        • 0x0@lemmy.zip
          2·
          14 hours ago

          Sure. Now tell me how often that happens?

          That i can remember only Iceland after the 2008 housing crisis did anything.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          1·
          24 hours ago

          Now tell me how often that happens?

          This is true it doesn’t, but it’s not because the government doesn’t have the power, my point is they choose not to do it.

          companies have the governments in their pockets.

          Exactly.

          • r00ty@kbin.life
            1·
            22 hours ago

            Well this was more or less my point. I said there’s nothing WE can do. The reason being, in the USA a minuscule number of people vote for people not affiliated with the main two parties, and it’s much the same in the UK (albeit with the split of the right recently among two/three parties). People vote one of two ways. It’s the same over and over across western countries. Outside of that, there’s often direct bribery options available anyway.

            You could run on providing pure utopia in most places in the west and no-one would even hear you. Because no-one is going to fund a genuine politician. Without funding, you’re not even an also-ran.

            No, the paid stooges always win. They will ensure their corporate paymasters are well looked after once they get into power. This is just the way of things. It will take a revolution to fix it, and historically they don’t go so well in the long term either. But, frankly there’s only so far we can go down this road before that happens.

            There’s not enough people that can see this going on and having a will to stop it. More than that, there’s just too many stupid people that worked out how to vote. The proof of this, is the absolute lowest common denominator US president right now.

            Corporates are a law unto themselves. It’s not a new idea, look at the original robocop movie, and indeed any 1980s dystopian movie. They’re stories about how corporations got too much power and the world went to shit. We’re just seeing the realisation of what those movies foretold.