Google Cleared 500 Hectares of Forest for Its New Data Center

Google's Finnish deforestation scandal has taken a new turn, as the Finnish licensing and supervisory authority (LVV) announced on October 22 that it has launched a police investigation into the data center planned for Muhos, and that changes indicating acidification have been detected in the area's waters. At the company's two sites in northern Finland, forest was cleared on a total of more than five hundred hectares even before the mandatory environmental impact assessments had been completed.

In Muhos, Google's communications director confirmed to Yle that trees were cleared on about 330 hectares, and in Otanmäki, part of Kajaani, on just under two hundred hectares. Conservationists estimate this amounts to roughly 250,000 trees at the first site and another 150,000 at the second. According to the authority, extensive work was carried out at both sites: trees were felled, topsoil was stripped, and work roads and storage areas were built, thereby altering precisely the environment whose condition and potential burden the assessment was supposed to evaluate. The order mandated an immediate halt, with a deadline of October 23 at the latest, and it remains in effect until the impact assessments are completed. It does not, however, ban all activity: planning, measurements, soil surveys, and work with minor and easily reversible effects may continue.

In its response on October 14, Google's Finnish subsidiary, Tuike Finland, stated that it had suspended the preparatory work in question at both sites. The company explains the events by saying that it relied on the notifications made under the Forest Act and on the Building Act's provisions regarding preparatory work, and that, based on discussions with the authorities, it understood its approach to be acceptable. According to the Finnish news agency STT, however, the authority had already indicated in May, in the case of Muhos, that an environmental impact assessment would be required — a detail that makes the company's after-the-fact explanation citing legal interpretation far more embarrassing, since this is not a case of an American giant simply getting lost among Finnish legal provisions. Kajaani's municipal statement of October 22 draws attention to an important distinction: according to the city, detailed nature conservation surveys were carried out during the land-use planning process, the tree felling was reported, and valuable habitats were taken into account, but these surveys do not legally substitute for the investment's environmental impact assessment. The city also stated that it has not yet issued a building permit, and that on October 7 the administrative court banned implementation of the Otanmäki–Humpinsuo partial plan until the case is resolved.

In a report by The Guardian, local residents spoke of discolored water and changes in wildlife after the forest disappeared, while the LVV's latest statement now cites measurement results. According to the authority, the Muhos area has black shale and acid-forming soil, so drainage and earthworks can increase the acidity and metal content of the waters, and the inspection results submitted by the company already show changes indicating acidification. Most of the roughly nine kilometers of planned new ditches have already been dug, even though the ditching should have been reported at least sixty days before work began. The authority is therefore demanding a water permit and, by November 5, a detailed water management plan accompanied by independent monitoring, as it considers the solutions proposed by Google insufficient on their own. It is also separately examining the condition of a moor frog's breeding and resting habitat located in the area.

The scandal has also spread into the supply chain of Finland's forestry industry. Yle discovered that wood from the two sites, through intermediaries, reached both UPM and Metsä Group, and that the companies have halted the relevant deliveries pending clarification. Metsä Group reported about five thousand cubic meters of wood from Otanmäki, while UPM reported a few thousand cubic meters. Stora Enso initially denied any involvement, but on October 17 admitted that, through a supplier, roughly five thousand cubic meters of log and pulpwood from Muhos had reached its Oulu business unit, although it stressed that it had no direct logging or transport contract with Google. According to the Finnish head of the FSC forest certification body, illegally harvested wood cannot enter the certified system and cannot be mixed with certified products, and PEFC is also investigating the matter. The felled wood has therefore not gone unsold — some of it has already entered industrial processing — and the question now is whether it can be used and what certification consequences that would entail, meaning the risk does not stop at Google's fence but also affects suppliers and processors.

Google's €13 billion program in Finland, announced in September, covers several sites, data centers, related infrastructure, as well as energy and local partnerships, with most of the investment to be carried out in 2027–2028. Claims about the economic benefits are diametrically opposed. Jussi Kangasharju, a professor of computer science at the University of Helsinki, told The Guardian that local employment is limited and that little corporate tax remains in Finland, whereas Google points to nationwide supplier and employment effects, estimating that the construction phase alone would support more than 37,000 jobs, with operations creating lasting positions. In Muhos, a specific municipal agreement is already known. The municipality announced in August 2025 that it had signed a €26 million land-use agreement with Tuike Finland for the development of utilities and roads. However, according to the municipality's 2026 budget, this revenue is offset by roughly equivalent infrastructure expenses, so it is not some freely spendable, clear profit. The agreement also includes around 255 hectares of forest conservation compensation, which is separate from the 130 hectares of reforestation Google has promised in Muhos.

One of the key questions in the national debate over data centers is energy supply. According to a forecast published in late September by Finland's grid operator Fingrid, the country's annual electricity consumption could rise from about 85 terawatt-hours in 2025 to 106–123 terawatt-hours by 2030, driven not only by data centers but also by the electrification of industry, hydrogen production, and the transformation of heating and transport. Fingrid is therefore urging the construction of new production capacity and weather-independent, dispatchable power plants. This does not automatically mean that any particular Google facility would raise household electricity bills by a specific amount, but it does mean that such investments must be coordinated with the country's entire energy system. The company responds to this with energy agreements: it says it has signed a 22-year contract on extending the lifespan of the Loviisa nuclear power plant, is supporting new wind power capacity, and has also contracted a 94-megawatt battery energy storage system — important commitments, but ones that do not replace the on-site environmental procedures. There has also been an important change in taxation: according to the Finnish tax authority, data centers have been excluded from the reduced electricity tax category as of July 1, 2026, and according to the Ministry of Finance, their tax rate has risen from 0.05 cents to 2.24 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The civic initiative calling for stricter regulation of data centers has already been supported by 96,522 people, according to the latest official register. Its initiators are demanding grid connection conditions, backup supply requirements, the use of waste heat, and a separate fee for the resources used, so that operators bear a more proportional share of the costs of electricity and water use, as well as environmental impact. According to the authority, work carried out before an environmental assessment can narrow down the genuine decision-making options, and Kajaani's municipal government itself acknowledges that coordination between authorities on major investments, as well as the flow of information, needs to improve, because by the time the various procedures catch up with each other, a significant part of the forest has already disappeared, some of the wood has already reached processors, and new plans for water management must now be submitted. The promised benefits of the investment can still be weighed, but no one can replace the forest that has already been cut down.

Ugar