This article seems like pretty typical Guardian clickbait and "data center hysteria". It isn't Google who is responsible; it is the primary contractor: Tuike Finland Oy.
Also, if this forest was being cut down to build an organic vegetable farm or preschool or petting zoo, would we be seeing the same headline? Not a chance in hell. This part is the most egregious reach to me:
> The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation said the sites had been reduced to “sand”
It was economic forest without any conservative value. You are allows to cut down trees on your own land.
If you cut down more than 200 hectares you need to make a statement about effects for the environment. Google cut down 300 at Muhos.
There will be no notable effects on environment because the site is economic forest or junk land, unles such environmental effect is made up by government officials to slow down Google.
Some of what google cut down was indeed planted forest (which are always native species in Finland) but the entire controversy here is that google also cut down multiple protected areas of rare native forests.
Also planted forests are not just for logging purposes. Finland has been investing in GTR techniques that are specifically aimed at protecting and increasing native biodiversity so there is still conservation value in many of these planted forests
How many preschools and petting zoos could you put on 200 hectares?