In principle, you could harvest wood sustainably for wood-fired stoves. It's just a matter of having a sufficient acreage per stove, which means you would be replacing the stored carbon at the same rate.
Wood decomposition is worse because it releases much methane too. There is also the potential for bush fires. These may be worse than a well-designed stove in terms of the black carbon released.
As against that, not allowing wood to rot naturally is a disturbance to the ecosystem and could threaten species, and the stoves do need to be designed and operated to minimise carbon particulates.

That is a huge claim in saying that "you could harvest wood sustainably for wood-fired stoves".

Lets say you have a 1000 wood-fired stoves each burning 5kg of timber a day. So we have a need for 5 tonne of wood per day. Plantation timber in some cases can become commercially viable for harvesting in 14 years in a lot of cases it is around 21 years. The bulk of which is used for its main purpose the remainder being 'scavenged' by firewood suppliers.

How many hectares would be required to provide that 5 tonnes on a daily basis? How soon would that 'waste' timber from these harvests, now a product called firewood, be depleted?

Sorry Derek but I cannot agree with such a claim, in no way can it make sense.

"the stoves do need to be designed and operated to minimise carbon particulates."

Too true. And the mathematical minimum is zero, which is only achieved by not buying, installing or using them.

In other words wood burning stoves have a design flaw; they burn wood.

No, it would only have to be no worse than the rotting/bushfire scenario.

So Derek apropos to my other reply just one wood-fired stove is worse. Anthropogenic increase in the speed at which carbon is released is by its very nature a worse scenario.

Hello i am the current president of Australian Forest Growers Farm Forestry of North East branch (AFG FORNE) And i would like to weigh in here in regard to use of trees for energy.
There seem to be biased and rather myopic understanding by some commentators of how we came about to climate change and the future challenges that are presented to the world and the role of the tree in assisting.
In regard to the first aspect a significant portion of human induced climate came about from putting geologically locked carbon into the atmosphere whilst also putting biologically locked carbon through land-clearing for the world growing populations. The world need to do a couple of fundamental things. firstly we need to limit geological carbon from entering the atmosphere and secondly we need to put trees into the ground to both increase the biological store (further more we also need to regulate globally human populations and change modern social and economic systems - but that is for another discussion elsewhere).

In terms of trees that are in agricultural regions there is a clear need for their utilities that span from the purely environmental through to the purely production. The favored solution to farming landscapes is when production and environmental aims are merged which is the aim of native forestry, agroforesty and in general, farm forestry. When you utilise wood through properly managed forestry you are putting biological carbon cycles into a better stabilised position not only because of the carbon balance but also because of hydrological cycles - all direct benefits to climate (even at localised scales) not to mention better biodiversity attributes combined with benefits to soils.
In term of pure utility to humans, this means material and energy use and may i remind people - humans have evolved to this point because of our association with wood fires and large parts of humanity still utilise acceptably this resource. In the modern world the acceptable use of home fire wood use comes from the way the resource is managed, the distance from the tree to the consumer, the dryness of the wood and the efficiency of the heat collected and used.
People that denounce firewood as bad are probably the same people that denounce that all forestry is bad too. Actually this is a incorrect statement. Are there bad examples - yes. But also there are also many good examples and people need to start understanding the difference and buying appropriately which then betters the economics to farmers driving more trees into the ground.
Cheers

Absolute Greenwash!!!!!!

My point is that the carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic, poisonous emissions out of woodheaters and wood stoves have no place being in the suburbs.

See a whole lot of these chemicals:
http://burningissues.org/car-www/pdfs/tablewoodsmokeweightnov02%20.pdf
just don't belong in peoples' lungs.

There is also the not so small problem that when a woodburner is annoying (and yes they can be super annoying) there is no easy way to make the smoke pollution stop. In fact so many people try to tell you that you have no right to complain yet for some it is intolerable, hence people lose their house to wood smoke. It is an incredibly traumatic experience I tell you.

So installing and using a wood heater next door to someone's house and polluting the air they breathe is the reason we need legislated protection against that kind of anti-social behaviour.

Now there are probably some people who want to shut me up. But they don't take into account the nastiness of the pollution, and their own nastiness where they just ride roughshod over peoples' concerns, emotions and their right to clean air.

I don't know your circumstances and yes their might be circumstances where woodfires are not appropriate like in high densification urban areas as you pointed out. But this does not amount to greenwash - just appropriateness of technology in particular situations.
Firewood from sustainable sources utilised in efficient ways is environmentally good.

Realistically the critical density, that doesn't sweep the nastiness of the chemicals in wood smoke under the carpet, that fully takes into account the reasonable wishes of people who don't want to be forced to be exposed to the smoke, that density would be about 0.2 dwellings per hectare.

i.e all "high densification urban areas", all suburbs, all towns and most reasonably densely settled rural areas should have strict wood burning bans.

Matthew Thredgold: "... all suburbs, all towns and most reasonably densely settled rural areas should have strict wood burning bans." Matthew, there are already adequate controls on wood burning. Your call for bans is extreme.

"There are already adequate controls on wood burning".

Tell that to the people in Canberra, Armidale, Launceston, Timaru, Arrowtown, Alexandra, or a thousand other towns where pollution standards are regularly exceeded.

And those standards, where they exist, are lax, and have no scientific credibility.

Matthew Thredgold: "... a thousand other towns where pollution standards are regularly exceeded." If that was true, wouldn't there be a great many complaints? I hear remarkably few complaints about wood smoke. Most of them from you.

Matthew Thredgold: "... those standards, where they exist, are lax, and have no scientific credibility." What credible evidence do you have for that assertion?

David, please give it up. You're constant nagging is getting close (and has exceeded) bullying. I get it. You don't know anything about it, and choose to remain ignorant on the subject. I think you are ideologically driven and are a natural bully. I don't know everything on the subject, but it takes very little time to look something up and it is pretty easy to find reputable sources that back up my view of the world.

On your first point - Most small towns in Australia and New Zealand have no air quality monitoring done. It is wrong to assume they are all under any supposed limits. Anecdotely I can tell you it is certainly the case that many a small town in NZ is polluted beyond any limits both acutely and chronically. Have you been to Launceston in winter?

As for your second point - I quote from the conclusions in the Australian Child Health and Pollution Study ( http://www.scew.gov.au/publications/pubs/air/achaps-final-report-may2012.pdf ) I recommend you read those conclusions.

"Although air pollution levels are relatively low in most regions of Australia, they may not be low enough to prevent adverse health effects, findings that have implications for the future revisions of the Australian air quality guidelines. Major reductions in the combustion emissions (PM, CO, NO2 and precursors of ambient O3; that is, oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic chemicals) will be required to counter the expected increase in air pollution as a result of the demands of a growing population. While current control measures are mainly targeted at motor vehicles, these measures need to be supplemented by urban design and transport demand strategies to lower and maintain those lower levels of ambient air pollutants."

So by world standards Australia and New Zealand match the WHO guidelines on particulate matter pollution, which is better than some places do (like the US for instance) but I contend those standards are still lax, and the science, although complicated, suggests the same.

I contend that not enough measurements are done to those standards.
I also contend when those standards are exceeded there is very little done to mitigate the problem detected.

The standards need tightening. The laws need tightening, and the victims of wood smoke should get a say in whether or not they get forced to endure woodsmoke pollution. There currently is no opt out clause, and that is a travesty of justice.

I think complete prohibition on burning wood on all but the remotest farms is the obvious solution, and the onus of proof that it isn't should be on people who want to believe otherwise.

That makes you an extremist and me a champion of social justice.

Right, so you have no evidence to support your assertion that [standards on wood-fire pollution] "where they exist, are lax, and have no scientific credibility."

Matthew Thredgold: "... complete prohibition on burning wood on all but the remotest farms is the obvious solution, ..." which is an insanely extreme position.

You take generalities and possibilities, then apply them with absolute certainty to your obsession. Sorry mate, that isn't healthy.

You seem to have allowed your obsession to rule your life, and possibly ruin it. That's a pity.

You demand sympathy for your misfortune, but your behaviour earns pity, at best.

Wood smoke isn't pretty; nor is it the end of civilisation. Let go and live your life.

David Boxall, You are a bully. You don't want me to have my say.

A prohibition on wood burning in places where people actually live is not an "insanely extreme position". It is the only position that takes into account the reality of the toxicity of the chemicals in wood smoke and enables a basic human right, the right to clean air to not be diminished.

Yeah it seems it is ahead of the curve, but that is only because there is widespread ignorance, and willful pigheadedness, but thanks for demonstrating it for all to see.

Now shut up. You've had your say. You can offer nothing of any value. You remain just a bully.

Please don't tell other to shut up
A prohibition on wood burning in places where people actually live, in my mind is a limitation to renewable energy source and your thought seem to have little bearing of people and industries using wood as a energy source. In Melbourne The Children's Hospital has installed a wood pellet heating system - A hospital has a fair idea of what is needed in terms emissions.

Here we have a problem in terms of Greenwash where people won't - for what ever are there ignorances - admit to the science when something is done properly and try to taint it as well - thanks for giving us a example Mat.

The hospital has made a huge mistake, probably under the influence of a sea of misinformation and greenwash. I hope it isn't too costly for them in the long run when it needs replacing.

Wood Pellet burners are a great way to destroy neighbourhood relations as well as air quality. Look what one did to a man at his wit's end in Rhode Island: http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/10/man-gets-suspended-sentence-for-filling-his-neighbors-furnace-with-c.html

People and companies promoting rubbish woodheaters, pellet burners, and "biomass" products should not be allowed to have inputs into public air quality policy. The recent craze of putting outdoor wood burners in in the US has led many jurisdictions to ban the damn things, and where there is an absence of such policy people like that Rhode Island man have to take measures into their own hands and fill the things with concrete.

I stand by my comments asking David to shut up. David has contributed nothing, but seems to have a huge problem with accepting the fact that I lost my house to woodsmoke pollution. He couldn't care less about my trauma, and that has caused huge offence. I have found that a certain type of person just won't let me speak about my experiences. David is one of them.

Go on read the conclusions of http://www.scew.gov.au/publications/pubs/air/achaps-final-report-may2012.pdf

We need to get particulate pollution levels down and not make excuses for making it a more intractable problem by deploying more bad products that foul neighbourhood air.

Matthew Thredgold: "... a certain type of person just won't let me speak about my experiences. David is one of them." What have I ever done to prevent you speaking?

Matthew Thredgold: "David ... seems to have a huge problem with accepting the fact that I lost my house to woodsmoke pollution." Matthew, whatever gave you that idea? Have I ever questioned you on that point? I do doubt the real impact of wood smoke, as distinct from your perception of it.

A recent study into Wind Turbine Syndrome (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912004783) attributes symptoms to negative orientated personality (NOP) traits (Neuroticism, Negative Affectivity and Frustration Intolerance). In other words, the "syndrome" is largely, if not entirely, psychosomatic. Examining your behaviour, I see reason to suspect that something similar is probably true in your case. Would banning wood fires have any impact on issues that lie largely within you?

Matthew Thredgold: "We need to get particulate pollution levels down ...". Perhaps, but is it a high priority? Is wood burning a substantial contributor?

Australian woodlands used to be managed by indigenous populations who carried out reasonably cold burns on a regular basis in a process that has been called firestick farming. Those indigenous populations are no longer there in most areas to do that maintenance work and forestry departments seem hard-pressed to manage it, so fuel can build up over years to excessive levels and in dry and hot summers can become a deadly risk to large areas of the country. Added to this, 200 years of logging, land clearing and regrowth has left very little natural forest at all and much of the regrowth is very crowded. I don't know where you get the idea that only mature trees will burn? In the Australian summer, when conditions are right, everything will burn, everything.