Remix.run Logo
▲ dgellow 4 hours ago

Correction: Illegally cleared 300 hectares

▲Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Correction: The article says someone is requesting that they halt construction so they can determine if any laws were broken because some people think they may have not waited appropriately for all environmental reviews to clear, but as far as I can tell nobody has determined if anything illegal was done yet.

> She is asking the LVV to halt the entire construction site so that authorities can determine whether Google tried to bring the forest down without first obtaining formal approval.

▲doublerabbit 4 hours ago | parent [-]

So, illegally cleared 300 hectares.

▲saalweachter 2 hours ago | parent [-]

For a lot of environmental regulations, whether or not a permit is needed is most of the question.

In the US, if you want to build a shed in the middle of a wetland, you need to go through an arduous permitting process and are unlikely to gain approval. If you want to build it within 100 feet, you can probably do it, but you need to confer with the relevant DEC to show that you won't negatively impact the wetland during construction. If you're more than 100 feet away, you don't even need to talk to the DEC, because you're not in protected land.

Of course, if the DEC decides they don't think your shed is outside the 100 ft adjacent area, they may decide to do a demarcation and figure out exactly where your shed is relative to the wetland, and if you messed up you're in trouble. But if they send out a biologist to demarcate the wetland and you're far enough away, you're fine.

So many people, if they think it's ambiguous, will take the time to go through an abbreviated permitting process to get a certificate of "no permit needed", to save themselves the headache later on.

If you go through a process like this, chances are people with local expertise will tell you you're wasting your time -- the case looks pretty clear cut, and hardly anyone ever has trouble in such circumstances. The clerk at the department responsible for issuing the "no permit needed" certificate may tell you you're wasting everyone's time.

But if you're a big corporation like Google, you don't really have an excuse not to do it. You can afford the lawyers, you can afford to plan years in advance, and so many more people are going to notice if you skip steps. Even if you end up being in the legal clear, no permit was needed, you're so much better off getting it in writing in advance.

▲ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲CaptWorld 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Illegal?

▲dwroberts 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It is implied to be illegal despite Google claiming it followed all laws etc:

> Public reports cited by the LVV indicate that around 300 hectares of Finnish forest, roughly 420 football fields, had already been cleared before the project's environmental impact could be properly assessed.

Presumably with the environmental assessment being a prerequisite for a permit or something

▲realo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The big problem here is that if it is found illegal, the crime Google committed is irreversible. They cannot undo the damage done to the 300 hectares of forest.

What then?

▲spogbiper 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

They literally could just replant those 300 hectares of forest. Or 3000 hectares to show how sorry they are. It's not irreparable.

▲crote 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The same could be said about the illegal murder of your hypothetical child, could it not? You can just grow a new one, no big deal.

▲themacguffinman 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The cutting down of a forest is obviously not morally or legally or technically comparable to the killing of a child. I honestly wonder whether you think you are persuading anyone when you make such a comparison, do you really believe that these trees should be held in the same regard as children?

▲thunderfork an hour ago | parent [-]

The point is that the damage is not so simple to reverse. There are consequences to destroying and regrowing that would not be felt if the destruction had not occurred.

▲themacguffinman 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

And the point the previous commenter was making is that the damage is pretty simple to reverse because trees are fungible, a point that is not countered in any way by an incredible analogy to notoriously non-fungible children.

▲thunderfork 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

Trees, forests, and the things that live in them are also non-fungible. This was also indicated in my previous comment. Hope this helps!

▲aesthesia 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Lots of crimes are irreversible, though, and the justice system handles them fine.

▲Hamuko an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It's important to note that when Google has said to have followed the law, it's been referring to following the forestry law. But the requirement to perform the environmental impact assessment is not part of the forestry law, but rather it's its own law.

(Source: https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000012304991.html)