Why Is the Pulp & Paper Industry Questioned for Cutting Trees While the Digital Revolution Also Demands Forest Land?

The Finland data centre controversy raises important questions about environmental double standards, responsible forestry and equal accountability across industries.

A case worth learning from

The global expansion of artificial intelligence is creating unprecedented demand for data centres and digital infrastructure. But this technological transformation is also raising an important environmental question: how should society evaluate the natural resources consumed by industries driving this new economy?

A recent development in Finland offers an important lesson.

In October 2026, Finland's Supervisory Agency ordered Google's local subsidiary, Tuike Finland, to suspend preparatory activities affecting the environment at two proposed data centre sites in Muhos and Kajaani-Otanmäki.

The intervention followed extensive tree removal, earthworks, topsoil stripping, road construction and drainage activities that had begun before the legally required environmental impact assessment procedures were completed.

The scale of the development is significant. Reports indicate that approximately 330 hectares of forest at Muhos and just under 200 hectares at Kajaani-Otanmäki had been cleared or prepared for development. Finnish conservation campaigners have estimated that approximately 250,000 trees were removed at Muhos. This tree count is an estimate, not an independently established official figure.

The matter subsequently escalated when Finnish police opened a preliminary investigation into suspected environmental damage at the Muhos site, including possible irregularities in drainage and water management.

Google acknowledged shortcomings in its approach and said it would cooperate with the authorities. The investigation remains ongoing, and no final finding of criminal liability has been established.

This is not an argument against data centres or artificial intelligence. It is an example of why environmental regulations, impact assessments and responsible land-use decisions matter, irrespective of the industry involved.

It also offers an important lesson for the global debate about paper, trees and industrial sustainability.

The question is process, not product

The central issue in Finland is not whether a data centre is a worthwhile investment or whether artificial intelligence represents technological progress.

It is whether environmental impacts are properly assessed before significant and potentially irreversible changes are made to the land.

That principle must apply equally to every industry.

A paper mill that clears natural forest without the necessary environmental approvals should face appropriate regulatory action. The same should apply to a data centre, mining project, highway, housing development or any other industrial activity.

What matters is not the identity of the company or the purpose of the project. What matters is whether environmental laws are followed, ecological consequences are understood and appropriate measures are taken to avoid, minimise and restore environmental damage.

The pulp and paper industry has faced questions about its dependence on trees for decades. Environmental organisations, regulators and policymakers frequently examine its raw-material sourcing and the implications of wood harvesting.

Some of these concerns are entirely legitimate. Irresponsible logging, destruction of natural forests and biodiversity loss deserve serious attention.

However, the debate often overlooks an important distinction: not every tree harvested for paper comes from a natural forest, and not every form of forestry represents deforestation.

Understanding this distinction is essential to having a meaningful environmental conversation.

Not all tree harvesting is deforestation

The pulp and paper industry depends on renewable fibre resources. These include wood from responsibly managed plantations, farm forestry, recovered paper and agricultural residues.

There is a fundamental difference between clearing a natural forest and harvesting trees from a properly managed plantation established for renewable fibre production.

Natural forests contain complex ecosystems, biodiversity and ecological functions that cannot simply be recreated by planting an equivalent number of trees elsewhere.

Managed plantations, on the other hand, can provide renewable industrial raw materials when they are developed with appropriate planning, species selection, soil and water protection, biodiversity safeguards and regeneration practices.

Farm forestry can also create opportunities for landowners and rural communities by providing an additional source of income while supporting industrial fibre requirements.

Recovered paper and recycled fibre further strengthen the industry's circular-economy contribution by extending the useful life of existing fibre resources.

Agricultural residues can offer additional opportunities to diversify fibre sourcing.

None of these practices should be treated as automatically sustainable. Their environmental performance must be evaluated through responsible sourcing, traceability and credible verification.

But equally, they should not be grouped together with the destruction of natural forests.

The environmental debate must distinguish between harvesting a renewable resource responsibly and destroying an irreplaceable natural ecosystem.

Treating these activities as identical helps neither the paper industry nor forest conservation.

Digital is not automatically green

The world increasingly associates digitalisation with environmental progress.

Paper is physical. Digital information is electronic. As a result, there is often an assumption that moving from paper to digital automatically reduces environmental impact.

But digital infrastructure is not resource-free.

Data centres require land, buildings, construction materials, electricity, cooling infrastructure, water management systems and manufactured equipment. Their operations also generate electronic waste and create demands on energy and other resources.

As artificial intelligence expands, the need for computing capacity and supporting infrastructure is also growing.

The benefits of AI are considerable. It can support scientific research, healthcare, education, manufacturing, agriculture and economic development.

There is no reason to oppose technological progress.

However, technological progress should not be treated as an exemption from environmental responsibility.

If a paper manufacturer must demonstrate responsible fibre sourcing, why should a data centre developer not be expected to demonstrate responsible land use?

If paper mills must address water consumption and energy efficiency, should data centres not face equally rigorous scrutiny of their water and electricity requirements?

If paper manufacturers are expected to protect forests and biodiversity, should infrastructure developers not be held to the same expectations?

The environmental footprint of an industry should be measured by its actual impact, not by how modern, innovative or fashionable its products appear.

The digital world may be invisible to consumers, but the infrastructure supporting it has a very real environmental footprint.

Paper versus pixels: We need science, not assumptions

The debate should not become a contest between paper and digital technology.

Both serve important purposes in modern society, and both have environmental impacts.

Paper supports education, books, newspapers, packaging, hygiene, healthcare and countless industrial applications.

Digital technology supports communication, information access, artificial intelligence, research and modern business infrastructure.

Neither should receive an automatic sustainability advantage.

A responsible comparison requires a comprehensive life-cycle assessment covering raw-material sourcing, manufacturing, energy consumption, transportation, usage and end-of-life management.

The environmental performance of paper depends on fibre sources, manufacturing efficiency, energy mix, water management, recycling and responsible disposal.

The environmental performance of digital services depends on infrastructure construction, electricity generation, cooling systems, equipment manufacturing, utilisation and electronic waste management.

A responsibly sourced paper product should not automatically be considered environmentally inferior to a digital alternative. Equally, a digital service should not automatically be considered environmentally superior simply because it reduces paper consumption.

It is also important to recognise that plantation-based fibre harvesting and clearing a natural forest for infrastructure are not identical activities. Their ecological consequences must be assessed separately.

The answer must come from credible evidence and transparent measurement.

Sustainability is not determined by whether a product is physical or digital. It is determined by the environmental consequences of producing, delivering and using it.

What the pulp and paper industry should do

The industry's strongest response to environmental criticism is not to point towards the activities of other sectors.

It is to demonstrate its own environmental performance through transparency, responsible practices and measurable improvements.

Pulp and paper manufacturers should continue strengthening their sustainability commitments in several areas.

Responsible fibre sourcing: Companies should disclose the origin of their fibre and distinguish between plantation wood, farm forestry, recovered paper and agricultural residues. Relevant third-party certification, including FSC, PEFC or equivalent schemes, should be identified where applicable.

Forest regeneration: Responsible plantation development and harvesting should be supported by appropriate regeneration programmes, ecological safeguards and long-term monitoring.

Water and energy efficiency: Manufacturers should continue reducing freshwater consumption, improving energy efficiency, recovering waste heat and investing in cleaner technologies.

Recycling and circularity: Better recovered-paper collection, recycling infrastructure and efficient fibre utilisation should remain important industry priorities.

Transparent reporting: Companies should publish credible environmental performance indicators, including water consumption, energy use, emissions and fibre sourcing, preferably supported by independent verification.

These are not merely defensive measures. They are essential investments in the long-term credibility and competitiveness of the industry.

The industry should welcome legitimate scrutiny from environmental organisations and recognise that responsible manufacturing requires continuous improvement.

The same transparency that we expect from other industries must begin within our own.

Environmental regulations and the responsibility of global supply chains

The pulp and paper industry is already operating in an environment of increasingly demanding sustainability and traceability expectations.

The European Union's Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) is one example. It establishes due-diligence requirements for covered commodities and specified products derived from them, including relevant wood-based products.

The regulation requires relevant operators to demonstrate that covered products are deforestation-free, legally produced and supported by appropriate due-diligence information, including the geolocation of the plots where the raw materials were produced.

Under the European Commission's current timetable, the regulation is scheduled to apply from 30 December 2026 to large and medium-sized operators and traders, and from 30 June 2027 to most micro and small operators.

The regulation's scope and implementation arrangements have undergone revisions, highlighting the importance of practical implementation and consistent enforcement.

The wider message is clear: responsible sourcing, traceability and transparency are becoming increasingly important expectations across global supply chains.

But such expectations should not be confined to traditional manufacturing.

As the digital economy expands, the environmental performance of infrastructure developers must also receive appropriate attention.

A consistent approach to environmental governance benefits everyone.

What the technology industry should do

The responsibility does not stop with traditional manufacturing.

Companies developing artificial intelligence infrastructure and large data centres must also demonstrate that their projects are planned and implemented responsibly.

They should be prepared to answer fundamental environmental questions:

• Were all legally required environmental assessments completed before significant land-altering activities began?

• What was the ecological value of the selected site before development?

• What impact will the project have on forests, biodiversity, water resources and surrounding communities?

• How much electricity and water will the facility consume, and what are the sources?

• What measures are being taken to avoid environmental damage and restore affected areas?

• Are environmental commitments independently monitored and publicly disclosed?

These questions should not be interpreted as opposition to technological development.

They are the basic requirements of responsible industrial investment.

The Finland case demonstrates why the sequence matters. Environmental assessments are intended to identify impacts, examine alternatives and establish mitigation measures before major decisions and potentially irreversible activities take place.

Conducting that process at the appropriate stage is better for the environment, regulators, communities and companies themselves.

Five questions every resource-dependent industry must answer

Rather than creating a conflict between sectors, we should establish common principles of environmental responsibility.

Every industry that depends on land and natural resources should be able to answer five fundamental questions.

1. Where do your resources come from?

Companies should disclose the origin of their raw materials and demonstrate responsible sourcing and land-use practices.

2. What is the actual environmental impact?

Environmental assessments must be completed at the appropriate stage, before activities that could cause significant or irreversible damage.

3. What happens to nature after development?

Regeneration, restoration and biodiversity protection must be incorporated into project planning and monitored over time.

4. What is your complete environmental footprint?

Land use, water consumption, energy requirements, emissions and waste must be considered across the entire value chain.

5. Are the same environmental standards applied to everyone?

No industry should receive preferential treatment because its products are associated with innovation, modernisation or economic growth.

These principles should apply equally to paper manufacturing, data centres, mining, infrastructure and every other resource-dependent activity.

Environmental organisations should be partners, not opponents

The relationship between the pulp and paper industry and environmental organisations should not be defined by confrontation.

Constructive engagement can deliver better outcomes than criticism without dialogue.

Environmental organisations have an important role in protecting natural forests, challenging irresponsible practices and encouraging stronger regulatory enforcement.

The paper industry, in turn, has an opportunity to demonstrate how responsibly managed plantations, farm forestry, recovered fibre and cleaner manufacturing can contribute to a more resource-efficient economy.

There will be disagreements, and legitimate environmental concerns must never be dismissed.

But the discussion should be based on scientific evidence, transparent data and a clear understanding of the differences between various forms of resource utilisation.

Environmental organisations should challenge irresponsible practices wherever they occur, whether in traditional manufacturing or emerging technology sectors.

And industry leaders should be willing to demonstrate that their operations meet the highest appropriate environmental standards.

The objective should be better environmental outcomes, not the creation of industrial villains.

Conclusion: One environmental standard, without exceptions

The Finland data centre controversy should encourage a broader reconsideration of how society evaluates industrial development.

For too long, the pulp and paper industry has been placed in a defensive position because its raw material is visibly connected to trees.

But responsible forestry, plantation development, recovered fibre and natural forest destruction are not interchangeable concepts.

They must be assessed on their actual environmental consequences.

At the same time, the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure reminds us that modern technology also depends on physical resources. Its environmental footprint deserves transparent assessment and appropriate regulatory oversight.

The paper industry does not need exemption from environmental scrutiny. It needs fair and consistent scrutiny.

It must continue improving its own practices, publishing credible information and demonstrating responsible resource utilisation.

But the same principles must apply to every other industry.

As an industry, we should not ask the world to question the paper industry less. We should ask the world to question every industry by the same environmental standards.

The world needs paper. It needs artificial intelligence. It needs manufacturing, infrastructure and innovation.

Above all, it needs forests, biodiversity and healthy ecosystems.

Protecting them is not the responsibility of one industry. It is the responsibility of every industry that benefits from the resources of this planet.

A tree does not become less valuable because it is removed for a data centre rather than a paper mill. Equally, a responsibly managed plantation does not become an environmental crime simply because its trees are used to manufacture paper.

Let us move beyond selective criticism and towards universal environmental accountability.

ONE STANDARD FOR EVERY INDUSTRY. EQUAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EVERY RESOURCE USER. AND RESPONSIBLE PROGRESS THAT DOES NOT COME AT THE EXPENSE OF NATURE.