The single argument in that tweet list is that wood not locally sourced requires transormation and transportation, making its use as a heat source not carbon ne

The single argument in that tweet list is that wood not locally sourced requires transormation and transportation, making its use as a heat source not carbon neutral. Maybe this applies to the UK. But in France, 30% of our land are forests, and these covers 100% of our firewood supplies. In this context, yes, using wood for heat is viable, renewable and (very close to) carbon neutral. As always in this kind of misinformation posts, the author seems to forget that transformation and transportation is also needed for coal. Even at its peak production, France was still dependant on other countries for its supply. Not to mention the impact on both public health and the environment being the primary reason why we stopped mining it at all. Yes, particle pollution is a concern, but burning wood for heat is forbidden anyway in dense areas, and not once in our neighborhood where most houses have wood stove did it ever cause any problem - which it definely could have, since we actually moved to the countryside because of city pollution related health issues my sister were having.