I'll give this a try, though I am not a scientist or product expert. To my knowledge, bio bricks, pressed logs and most pellets are not made from trees cut explicitly for their manufacture. Instead, they use the tremendous amount of sawdust that is created from the lumber and plywood industry. This used to be considered a waste product. They use their own fuel to dry the sawdust and in some big plants to power them. It's sifted very clean so that one is burning virtually no bark. The infrastructure is expensive, but is a one time expense. Some pressed log machines were made in the 1920's and are still in production! Yes, there is transportation environmental costs, but so is there for any fuel. According to bio-bricks their product has been tested to be about 52% less emissions (in gms/hr) than clean cord wood burning in an EPA certified stove. A lot of that is because one does less refilling over a 24 hr period than with burning cord wood. Is it perfect, absolutely not. Is it more environmentally (and politically independent?) friendly that say middle east oil or even US coal? Definitely yes. If the goal is zero carbon footprint, perhaps we all should be living underground or at least in earthbermed houses, 1/4 the current size, wearing sweaters and heating our houses with just the lighting and appliances within it. But there are a few million existing homes in the way right now that still need heat. To be clear, I'm not advocating everyone stop burning cordwood. It makes great sense to burn it cleanly when locally available. Biobricks, pellet stoves, & compressed logs, are a great alternative for people in an urban or suburban area where fuel has to be trucked in regardless and where population density dictates much cleaner burning per household. Considering that is where the majority of the population now lives, the product makes good sense to me.