To clarify, when I said they didn't make a specific claim, that was not to absolve them from being misleading, but to highlight the form of deceit they're using.
They're playing a common game in the "think tank" and lobbyist world, where you frame a series of claims in a way that strongly implies the conclusion you want the reader to make. In this way, you can convince people they read a "study" (which they assume to be incontrovertible science) that proved something it never actually said, while avoiding being called out for making a false claim.
It is not an outright lie, but it is dishonest, because the intent is to deceive.
Making ambiguous claims, like saying that a mixed fuel plant releases more CO2 when burning wood than when burning coal, but neglecting to explain their metric or provide their source for the claim is another way to play the game.
Also, a point I forgot to make earlier: wood waste that is not burned but allowed to rot releases much of its carbon in the form methane. Since methane is considered to be roughly 20 times as potent of a greenhouse gas as CO2, creating a market that burns wood waste instead of leaving it to rot has a disproportionately large theoretical climate benefit.
Although in recent years, use of sawmill waste has grown significantly (hog fuel, engineered wood, mulch, etc), a huge amount of wood still gets thrown out - roughly 1/3 of the mass of a tree (branches, tops, stumps, etc) gets left where it was cut.
The link is worrying about the UK using wood equivalent to 7% of our annual harvest being lost from sequestration, when 33% is not only also lost, but much of it is converted to methane.
That's not to mention what dies and goes to waste. Historically, an amount of US timber equivalent to 1/3 to 1/2 of the total commercial harvest goes to waste from natural mortality. With the invasion of emerald ash borer, pine beetle, etc, the proportion has jumped to nearly equal amounts of timber harvested versus dying and left to rot.
