this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2026
817 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
88390 readers
3128 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For those who haven’t looked at it
Google razed the forest without the environmental assessments to whether they could do that or not, aka ‘fuck your laws and the wildlife’
Fine them $1 billion per tree. Seriously. It has to really hurt them, or it will just be "the cost of doing business." It has to be bad enough that they must sell off a division or two, and their stock has to tank 33% or more, so they, and everybody else watching, takes a hard lesson from it.
Or start holding the decision-making executives criminally liable.
Yeah, that, too.
Do both.
Won't happen. I hope I'm wrong. But I don't think I am.
It's up to us, we have to force politicians to do it.
It's a bit more complicated. Tuike tried to argue that the project wouldn't need that assessment as it wasn't being done as part of commercially selling trees from a natural forest as a "natural resource" as the law was worded, and they tried to ask for a "case by case" exemption that would allow them to start the clearing without having to wait for the whole lengthy assessment process to go through the systems. That exception got rejected because "Forest nature does not only mean forests in their natural state, but also forests used for forestry" (the Finnish words being "luonnonvara", "metsäluonto" and "luonnontilainen metsä".)
They might have been technically fine had they not sold any of the trees. But, I mean, what else can you do with 300 hectares of trees?
Finnish source from HS.fi.
shocking no one, laws are worded in complicated ways that lawyers will take full advantage of.