The bigger thing I worry about isn't the felled trees, but rather the power consumption of the data center. And for that, I think it's generally good that google is placing a datacenter in a cold climate country.
I'm guessing you're out of the blast radius so it's easy to form an image and shadow box against it...with the hope others will buy into the diversion...
Btw I'm not even against all data centers. I am for following the law.
Trees take a generation or two to regrow. They don't "grow like weeds." Someone has to plant and protect them while they grow. That's a lot of work.
In the meantime, there are displaced wolves roaming the neighborhoods.
Plus, these trees aren't going to be replanted like in your projection. They're getting replaced with steel, concrete, asphalt, and electronics. All of which supporting tech that consumes rather than generates resources.
And the trees are^Wwere part of a system. They kept muddy water from flowing into the other stream. This will have all kinds of "downstrean" (heh) effects.
Forests can be cleared like this, but it requires assessment, approval and preparation. This wrecklessness is the epitome of "move fast and break things," "ask forgiveness rather than permission," and the "never believe you're wrong" mindsets that have caused so much damage.
As if people didnt have enough reasons to mistrust the U.S.
I hope this disastwe hastens Europe toward de-googlification.
10 to 20 years. Obviously it depends on the species.
> They don't "grow like weeds." Someone has to plant and protect them while they grow. That's a lot of work.
Planting takes some work, for sure, but otherwise it's literally just leaving them alone. That's how sustainable logging works. But even if you don't specifically plant them trees naturally sprout and reforest. For example, when yellowstone burnt down about 40 years ago now, nobody went in to plant new trees there, they naturally grew back and it's now to the point where only a few traces of that fire remain (in the form of a few burnt stumps that you can still see).
Any farmer will tell you that it takes effort to stop trees from growing where you don't want them.
> In the meantime, there are displaced wolves roaming the neighborhoods.
It's 1 sq mile of land in a nation with 80,000 sq miles of forest. The wolves will find other places to roam.
> Plus, these trees aren't going to be replanted like in your projection. They're getting replaced with steel, concrete, asphalt, and electronics. All of which supporting tech that consumes rather than generates resources.
Fair point. I was mostly pushing back on the notion that this is some sort of irrecoverable horrible environmental problem because of the lost trees.
> Forests can be cleared like this, but it requires assessment, approval and preparation. This wrecklessness is the epitome of "move fast and break things," "ask forgiveness rather than permission," and the "never believe you're wrong" mindsets that have caused so much damage.
I'm not defending google for breaking the law and I agree they should have followed the rules. I'm mostly just pointing out that the amount of trees being felled along with the size of land being taken is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. It's a large building, for sure, but an ultimately small amount of land.
And beyond that even when they do recover that's when they have good topsoil. In this situation Google removed the topsoil as well.
Speaking of the topsoil there's other add-on effects such as exposing methylmercury under the topsoil which gets washed away when it now rains. That mercury as well as other sediment makes its way into the water system and it actually clogs fish's gills and poisons the water system.
On top of that I discovered that it's actually 2 square miles not just one. But the fact that it's only a percent of a percent of Finland's total forest isn't really a useful comparison: Imagine if Google bulldozed 3,400 American homes without permission would we say oh there's still plenty of homes left?
And, as I pointed out, I am concerned about the power consumption of data centers. But, all things considered, if we are going to have them then the best place to put them to reduce their power consumption is cold climates.
Cutting down trees and replacing them with an industrial park is not a form of carbon capture.
The vast majority of logged biomass does not get turned into long-term wood products.
Obviously you have an uncharitable view of my comment.
It's not "bad faith" just because it's a view you don't share.
> Cutting down trees and replacing them with an industrial park is not a form of carbon capture.
Depends entirely on what's done with the wood that was cut down. For sure, if it's all sold as firewood then no it's ultimately not beneficial. However, if any of it is turned into a long term wood product then yeah, carbon capture has occurred. If it's burnt, it's ultimately a carbon neutral action as the captured carbon from the forest is short term regardless.
The bigger problem is emissions from power consumption at the datacenter. That alone dwarfs everything about the deforestation (a point I initially brought up). I'd say that's the point you and others are missing the forest for the trees. Hyperfocusing on the trees is unproductive and an argument of emotion.
> The vast majority of logged biomass does not get turned into long-term wood products.
Some of it does, which is what makes it carbon capture. You don't have to perfectly capture all carbon from biomass to have achieved carbon capture. This is why unmanaged forests are carbon negative, although inefficient. Even though most carbon is sent back into the atmosphere due to rot, some does end up absorbed in the ground.
The majority of endangered animals in Finland are water dwelling. The ones that aren't are predators who wander regardless. They are endangered because of their interactions with farmers and livestock.
1 sq mile of forest lost in a nation that has over 80,000 square miles of forest is insignificant.