Gas prices - Where is gas still affordable?

I'll ask openly: How many trees do you think need to be planted for each tree burned to be CO2-neutral? And how many for each tree naturally decaying?

One each, if you do it continuously. Assume a tree takes 20 years until it's ready to be cut. If you plant a piece of land with trees every year for 20 years, you can harvest the oldest ones every year after those 20 years.
This is not usually done. But this natural cycle also exists in nature.

Correction: "planted 50 years ago"

No! What I actually meant is that the argument of the CO2 balance from burning renewable raw materials requires a defined period. For practical reasons, let's take 1 year. Then I would have to calculate how many newly planted trees in 1 year bind as much CO2 as a 50-year-old tree releases when burned. Then I would have internal consistency. You can see from the subjunctive that I do not consider this practicable. That is because it would be very many new trees, and nobody plants that many. Decomposition, on the other hand, takes about as long as binding through new growth, again calculated over 1 year.

One each, if you do it continuously.

That's a common misconception (no offense meant).
That would maintain the stock of trees, but in the first period until the trees reach cutting age (several decades), it would add additional CO2 to the atmosphere and afterwards no longer absorb any.
Overall, there is less tree MASS afterward because there are fewer old trees and more young ones.

From the perspective of CO2 emissions, the argument doesn't hold. Explanation in the answer to above here.

Correction: "planted 50 years ago"

Although that is very simplified - a real forest needs 500 years to properly bind CO2. For that to work, the trees have to be able to rot on site. If you remove them from the forest, the forest dies and the CO2 capacity of the commercial forest approaches zero.

Why does this have to be proven again in every second "energy" thread? This is all stated every day in all sorts of (non-Springer) media...

Because, as with everything, it depends on the quantity. It is certainly not feasible or sensible to heat all households with wood now. But it is a transitional alternative for some, so they don't have to sit in the cold due to failed policies. Energy will not be sufficient for everyone next winter if Russia really stops supplying gas. Not everyone can install photovoltaics that quickly. Therefore, wood is a reasonable interim solution.

This is just a popular misconception (no offense intended).
That would then preserve the stock of trees, but in the first period until the trees reach harvest age (several decades) it would release additional CO2 into the atmosphere and afterwards would no longer absorb it.
Overall, there is less tree MASS afterwards because there are fewer old trees and more young ones.

From the perspective of CO2 emissions, the argument therefore does not hold. Explanation in the reply to above here.

Why should it release more CO2 if you only plant in the first 20 years until the trees mature?

Oil and coal were once wood or creatures that formed over a few decades, just as it happens today. Therefore, they bound CO2 during these few decades, just as wood does while growing today.

That it was then transformed over millions of years and stored for millions of years afterward does not change that. That CO2 was already bound beforehand.

You are forgetting something crucial. Yes, it grew in a few years and bound CO2. However, over many millions of years.
The gigantic amounts of fossil fuels that we recklessly burn today are CO2 bound from millions of years ago. They are captured sunlight from millions of years ago. And this solar energy and gigantic amounts of CO2 we now emit into the air within decades.
Thus, the planned ice age is cancelled and we welcome climate change.