About passive houses and plastic bags and styrofoam fur

Ok, understood. The fuel wood including pellet heating, which is so popular in rural eco circles, is therefore also not a real progress compared to oil/gas.

Ok, understood.

Fine.

The fuel wood including pellet heating, which is so popular in rural eco-circles, is therefore no real progress compared to oil/gas.

Oops! So you didn’t understand after all.

I feel confirmed and yet it annoys me: If you do not discuss the same facts, i.e. do not even base it on the same situation, that approach

[...], instead of looking at how it is and what follows from the present.

is impossible. What "is"? The state you described with subtle irony (2nd quote in this post) "is" precisely not. You misunderstood that, if you interpreted me that way.

But still, it does not automatically follow that your approach "burning = ok, if replanting" generally would be correct.

And such a statement (very similar to what Tego12 wrote in #51) is not a moral finger wag, but a logically consistent assertion.

Just by the way, I would like to add that biotopes that have developed over centuries are not the same as fast-growing pine forests, which are regularly cleared and planted. I don't even want to start on the excavated pits for coal, etc.

I am confused. What I understood is: if I burn wood and plant something again, I borrow CO2 for 80 years, which is too long to repay. Hmm. So: wood is not good.

Better not to burn anything at all. There is neither enough wood for heating nor to insulate everything.

There is no single solution. We are individual and have individual needs. What is important is that we keep our "footprint" as small as possible.
Electric car powered by own photovoltaic system certainly does not work for people who have to commute,
public transport, if it even exists.
Passive house - Energy Saving Ordinance
Vegetarian - meat eater
Organic, regional products - as long as it's cheap, no matter where from
etc.

There is not only black and white. Online shopping is often demonized because all the packages have to be delivered. It may be true for areas where shops are within walking distance. Not necessarily for rural areas.

Basically, everyone can turn the screws they can without fundamentally changing themselves and their lifestyle.

Karsten, it's about what happens within a defined period of time with the total balance (!) of all biomass use. If this is zero, meaning as much has regrown within this period as has been burned, it is neutral.

If people burn first and then plant, the world has to cope with an excess of CO2 (and fewer trees) for 50-100 years (tree growth). Time factor. Planting one new tree for every burned tree is insufficient.
A forest from which only as much is taken as regrows in total in the time between two harvests is sensible. But not to burn one tree and then plant one.

Time factor: If a standard tree takes 50 years to grow and you want to heat with wood, to be neutral you need a small forest (!) that after 50 years of harvesting by you has the same biomass of wood as at the beginning.

Because of the time factor, you cannot make one burned tree CO2 neutral with one planted tree within reasonable timeframes. It doesn't work.

And if timeframes didn't matter, that's my argument, oil and coal would also be good again. They are also cycle products. On a million-year scale, anyway.

I doubt that wood is so much better/more ecological as a fuel for these reasons. Even Greens talk a lot of nonsense when the day is long. Burning simply isn't ideal, no matter what you burn.