Something like 40% of the "renewable" energy being generated in the EU/Britain comes from burning wood, a lot of which was shipped from the US.
Even in the best case, when you cut down a tree, burn it, and plant a replacement you've still released a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere. So carbon in the atmosphere will be raised for 20-50 years.
When people have looked into the source of these wood pellets the claims of the pellet companies often don't line up with official records - like saying they didn't log an old-growth forest, when they held the logging license at the time it was logged. Or claiming they only use sawdust and low-quality wood, when their output volume is much greater than the amount of low-quality wood you'd expect [1].
And supposedly the trees get replanted - but the company doing it got paid when the pellets were delivered. If in 5 years time they decide to do something else with the land, they can do.
The government turns a blind eye to this to hit their 'renewables' targets.
Global warming is a global, long term issue.
Focusing on a single tree is pretty much the canonical opposite of the wrong perspective to bring to it.
For the replanting side to work, growing fuel trees needs to be profitable. When it is, capitalists will replant out of greed, and the system will hum along by itself.
https://policy.friendsoftheearth.uk/insight/future-drax-old-...