| ▲ | monk_grilla 3 hours ago |
| > Google said in a statement “we understand the concerns” and that it had “fallen short of our own high standards”. But it wasn't their own high standards, it was a legal obligation that they neglected? I hope in vain that the powers that be are able to punish them in a way they will actually feel... |
|
| ▲ | wolvoleo 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| It really reads as "We're sorry we got caught" in corpospeak. |
|
| ▲ | jltsiren 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is an amusing little scandal, but it seems to be only a procedural issue. Assuming that Google has some basic competence, it selected locations where it's ultimately possible to build data centers while complying with all legal requirements. My guess is that the government will eventually find that all requirements have been satisfied and let the projects move on. But because this is now a controversial issue, someone with the standing will very likely file a complaint. Then the projects will be stuck in administrative courts for a year or two. |
| |
| ▲ | culi 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > This is an amusing little scandal, but it seems to be only a procedural issue. If you go out and illegally cut down a tree, that's not "only a procedural issue". They illegally logged 815 acres of forest. | | |
| ▲ | jltsiren 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Breaking the law is a procedural issue. Logging a few hundred hectares was not a problem. Google could have done that without additional permits, if their intention was to plant a new forest afterwards. Environmental impact assessment was only necessary, because they intended to replace the forest with something else. The key question is whether Google can comply with the law after the fact. If they complete the assessment and the government finds nothing that would prevent the construction of the data centers, the project can go on. Maybe there will be some minor sanctions, as well as some delays, as they didn't do things properly the first time. And even if there is something that prevents construction, Google can still probably comply by planting a new forest. | |
| ▲ | dackdel 10 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | they illegally destroyed 815 acres of forest |
| |
| ▲ | reactordev 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | be real, they will just pay off the local officials to pass zoning laws to make it all legal. As they have done across the states. | | |
| ▲ | jltsiren an hour ago | parent [-] | | The environmental impact assessment requirement is a national law, and the national government is responsible for approving it. But since elections are coming and the issue has become controversial, the government coalition will happily ignore it and let administrators and judges sort it out. They have bigger things to worry about. | | |
| |
| ▲ | _heimdall an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Its a pretty egregious procedural oversight if you want to chalk it up to that. For sure this is being politicized, for example claiming that the area was reduced to sand due to an overheated data center market. But to clear the land before doing legally required environmental impact studies is a pretty obvious mistake, and frankly I'm not sure how you'd even have landed on a plan for land clearing before doing said study if its required. How would you know what areas to clear, for example? | | |
| ▲ | lanyard-textile an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, that is not procedural oversight. That's simply not following the law, plain and simple. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | newCrotchSmell 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They phrase it briefly like that for maximum coverage Pose your question to them and they can say "sure if you need to finish our statement with...high standards to follow law... you do you" Subject = our high standards Predicate = whatever context you want to store here |
|
| ▲ | shadowgovt 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The punishment will almost certainly fall on the subcontractor they contracted this work to who cut corners and should know better about local law. |
|
| ▲ | titzer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > are able to punish them They will not. |
