[skybrian]

Growing a tree removes carbon from the air. That's carbon-negative. Cutting it down and using it in construction is still net-negative for the wood itself. (Though probably not when you take other energy usage into account.) In the very long run, the building might be torn down and the wood might rot or burn bringing things back to zero again.

Growing a tree, cutting it down, and burning the wood is carbon-neutral. But it's very dirty when it comes to other pollutants. A catalytic converter can help.

[UI_at_80x24]

You are right about it being carbon neutral but only from a small frame of reference.

How is the wood cut? How is the wood transported? How is the wood processed?

Every one of these steps add carbon to the cycle. Some steps are minimal, others are huge; it all depends on scope.

I've heat my home with a wood-burning stove for 20-odd years. I have my own acreage and friends/family/farmers all contribute. Cutting down a tree, bringing it home, chopping it size so it fits in the stove are VERY energy intensive operations.

[lostlogin]

> Growing a tree, cutting it down, and burning the wood is carbon-neutral

It isn’t though. A lot of energy is used planting then maintaining a forest for 30 years, cutting it down, processing it then shipping it. When timber is used in the building industry it’s a bit better but it is still notoriously wasteful. A lot of material goes to site and is binned - offcuts, wastage, over order and material in the wrong place.