Biofuels like wood can be roughly carbon-neutral, since growing them absorbs atmospheric CO2, and burning them releases that same amount of carbon back into the atmosphere.
Though obviously this isn't the case if the wood comes from badly-managed forests that are not replanted. And there are other effects that can make wood fuel carbon-positive:
True, but it doesn't matter. After you burn the wood, you are adding carbon that doesn't need to be there. The physics don't distinguish between carbon that is produced by a short carbon cycle or a long one.
In the case of wood, the carbon is accessed from, and ultimately returned to, the active biosphere. It's not fossil fuel that's been sequestered for 100s of millions of years, but was itself captured largely within recent decades.
Contrasted with burning coal, oil, or gas, preferred.
(Woodfuel may still be burned unsustainably, that's a separate question.)
Noted FWIW in TFA:
[U]nlike gas and oil, wood is a renewable and CO2-neutral fuel (the CO2 that is produced by the burning of wood was taken out of the atmosphere by the tree during the years before). The problem is that wood stoves are not very efficient, and extremely polluting.
Whilst it is for burning fossile files, when you’re burning the wood that grew on your property over the past 20 years, the carbon cycle is much shorter. Especially if your property grows it all back, it’s a closed carbon loop.
Though obviously this isn't the case if the wood comes from badly-managed forests that are not replanted. And there are other effects that can make wood fuel carbon-positive:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burni...