[defrost]

It's literally burning surface carbon that's part of the regular surface land, sea, air, carbon flow that's existed for all of human history (and human existence).

It's not adding to that cycle by reaching down into the depths of the earths crust to bring up carbon captured and sealed away for longer than human existence .. you know, that additional carbon that is referred to when increased carbon footprints are seriously talked about.

[franga2000]

This distinction only makes sense if those threes were going to be burned anyways. A can of diesel in a good generator and letting the trees decompose or be used for lumber should be far better in terms of emissions than burning the required amount of wood.

[defrost]

> far better in terms of emissions

Particle emissions isn't what I responded to .. in terms of carbon and greenhouse gases what matters more is trees not being replaced.

In the course of, say, plantation growing timber for lumber generates sufficient burnable wood for landowners and a wider community - the final lumber trees are the ones that weren't weeded out earlier (and burnt) and have been routinely lopped of branches (more burnable wood) to minimize knots, etc.

Forrest management is a thing, timber for lumber, coppicing for regrowth, et al has been going on for several thousand years and has been part of traditional surface carbon cycle.

As has large scale grassland (and forest undercover) burning off for fire management.

[AngryData]

Wood that decomposes is wood that is turned into CO2 anyways. If you are selectively harvesting, and preferring dead or dieing trees, the only "downside" is that the forest itself doesn't occasionally catch on fire.

[Dylanfm]

The firewood can be harvested as part of a coppice rotation too, e.g a woodland broken up into 8 coupes with one harvested selectively each year, then starting again at the beginning after regrowth is sufficient. Friends of mine do this and it works well. They replant as necessary as they go.