[galdosdi]

> Presumably because they think it's necessary.

For people who have studied the history of how countries and their leadership make decisions, even just superficially (eg, you've followed the news for 20 years), this is actually a very strange presumption.

It is historically just as plausible that it's not thought necessary for society as a whole, but is simply profitable for some special interest, such as (just an example, not an actual suggestion) a large forest land owner.

I thought this was obvious, unless one is very young still or one has never taken any interest in history or current events.

[MichaelCollins]

How do you think Hungarians should heat their homes this winter?

Not, 'What could they have done five years ago?' or 'What could they do five years from now?' I want to know how Hungarians can heat their homes 5 months from now. That's the question the government of Hungary is forced to address.

[jjav]

Since burning forests to heat homes is not sustainable nor renewable (at a timescale that makes sense), it's not a rational solution. What will they do 5 years from now (or however many years that all forests are gone)?

[MichaelCollins]

> What will they do 5 years from now (or however many years that all forests are gone)?

Solar panels and heat pumps seem like a good long-term solution, but that can't be done in time to keep people warm this winter. So for this winter, what would you have them do? Freeze? Travel back in time a few years and come up with a better solution?

[tuatoru]

Recruit some of the displaced Ukrainians from Poland, and get them to install insulation.

Edit: you seem to be under the impression that this "firewood" will go to households of all income levels. GP's statement about naivete is reinforced.

[s1artibartfast]

They could buy natural gas like they always have if they so chose to?

I'm sure it would sting to do so, but it is an option.