I fall on this thread and I see that I had not expressed myself well. so here is my reasoning:
formerly the French forest has been over-exploited down to only 15% of the country's surface. it's very little, it's what I called a moribund forest because if we had continued, we would have had it quickly completely shaved. today is better, okay, but the forest is not out of the box if we take 15% as normal. 25%, if I remember the numbers well, it can be considered convalescent, but not yet on top!
today, the atmosphere is overloaded with CO2, so I consider that the growth of trees in place is reserved for the depollution, that we should not burn them until we have first grown the equivalent . be clean up before repolling rather than adding and counting that it will balance in years, because during these years the rate of co2 will be even higher and fewer trees to absorb it.
If we think about the year, that amounts to saying that we have to considerably increase the forest surface to achieve the production of wood for heating plus the trapping of CO2 necessary to empty the "reservoir" a little. and that if we increase the cuts without increasing the areas, we will have many very young trees, which have fewer leaves and have a lower CO2 absorption capacity. this is what I call a chlorophyll deficit, compared with forward-looking forest management.
here, I hope it's clearer because if I have to explain it again I'm not going to extricate myself