We are planning to build in 2022; the planning begins

OK, then a bit less brief but still not too long. For decades to come, we will not move away from burning oil, coal, and gas. To reduce overall emissions, it would therefore be advantageous if trees permanently bind CO2 and thus add a negative CO2 contribution to the CO2 balance. Burning wood releases the CO2 again that would otherwise have remained bound in the tree. Put simply: climate neutral is better than climate harmful but worse than climate improving.

I have never claimed otherwise. But your sentence:

I don’t want to play the big environmental activist either but we really have to stop constantly burning things!

implies that you think burning wood is harmful to the environment. But it isn’t, as you yourself already say. On the other hand, you could argue that trees need to be cut down so that other trees can grow back in the first place or that heating with wood (climate neutral) instead of oil (climate harmful) is positive for the balance because generally less CO2 would be produced which would have to be absorbed by the trees, etc. But I think we’d be hijacking the thread with that, the topic isn’t that simple.

Climate neutral is better than climate harmful but less good than climate improving.

That says it all!

Oh, a follow-up for reflection: You wrote "In order to reduce total emissions, it would therefore be advantageous if trees permanently bind CO2 and thus add a negative CO2 contribution to the CO2 balance." It has already been clarified that this is not true because trees do not permanently bind CO2 but only as long as they grow. That is why it is said "climate neutral." If standing trees improve the CO2 balance and release it again when dying, what will you do in 100 years when you have to offset the then prevailing CO2 balance plus the CO2 emissions of the dying trees? Plant even more trees? And 100 years later even more trees? Until there is no more space on Earth.

Trees do not contribute to improving CO2 because CO2 is only transported from one reservoir (air) to another reservoir (tree). The CO2 is already present and is not eliminated by the tree. The only way to improve the CO2 balance is simply to produce less CO2. Therefore, it makes no difference whether you burn a tree or not, as long as at least one new one is planted. Because the new tree will absorb again the CO2 that the burned one released.

Edit: I find the topic quite interesting and worth discussing. We can gladly start a new thread on this.

Had the appointment with the GU today. He was very unprepared. I am currently training my nonexistent patience. But in the end, it was good. He said that if everything goes well, the building application should be planned for the end of October. The official site plan is not yet available. Additionally, I will first conclude a planning contract with him, where 5% of the total amount must be paid (but this is included in the price and will then be deducted from the construction contract). 50% is due upon submission of the building application. 50% then after 5-6 weeks.

One question regarding the financing. I would only want to do this at the end of the year due to the commitment interest. Can I actually submit and get reimbursed for amounts already paid such as:
- Surveyor
- Soil report
- Planning contract

How long is the construction period planned/guaranteed? And from which point in time does this apply to you?

How long is the construction period planned/guaranteed? And from what point does it apply for you?

The construction time guarantee is 8 months. From then on, there is €200 per day to me. I have a price guarantee at least until the end of next year.