This researcher here in this opinion piece says burning wood is twice as bad as coal/fuel oil for the climate warming -attributed to increases in co2. Most of us wood burners understand that we can't burn and expect the same heat energy as equivalent fossil fuels- coal simply has more energy per mass. I think the professor doesn't give the wood burner enough credit. Left to the natural world, and given enough time, all wood biodegrades and releases all the stored carbon as free co2. With wood burning, if two trees are planted for every tree burned- one to replace and continue the co2 storage of the original tree- and a second tree to replace the stored carbon that was burned, after a long time the tiny amount of charcoal created by wood burning would eventually catch up and make wood burning carbon nuetral. Considering most of us burn a lot of wood that would otherwise biodegrade naturally, is the second tree really required?