you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 110 points 1 day ago (6 children)
  • [–] 77 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    The government sold them the land, it's not like they thought Google was going to turn it in to a nature preserve. They knew exactly what Google was planning on doing with it, and it didn't involve keeping the trees.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    To be fair, on paper...

    1. Sell land for millions.
    2. Google applies for building permits.
    3. Deny permits because of environmental impact.

    The odds of them completely ignoring step 2 are honestly pretty slim. Building permits are still necessary even if you're planning on ignoring things like the environmental stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    I mean sure, but they still didn't get proper authorization, likely because it comes with environmental assessments, and interventions which could very well include wolf relocation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 23 hours ago (1 child)

    You'd have to relocate the entire ecosystem. the wolves were there because the food was there. the food was there because the trees where there. If you relocate the wolves to where their food isn't, you're just starving a bunch of wolves in a different location.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 20 hours ago

    That's why there's a lot of research and thought put into where wolves (or any other predator) are released. Often it's a location where they lived historically but were hunted out. The better solution of course would be to tell Google to shove their data centers, especially with their lawless unaccountable behavior.

  • source
  • parent