I agree with the previous commentator in that the question is whether the forest is sustainably managed and that it all depends on the carbon accounting that can be done scientifically to the extend that it includes the life-cycle analysis (from carbon loss due to extraction, the carbon emission in production and transportation). I disagree with the author that "natural" forest should be a "no-no" without further qualification. There are examples whereby a natural forest can be utilized in a way that is sustainable - even to the extend of maintaining the existing bio-diversity in contrast to plantation forest whereby bio-diversity is definitely sacrificed. It is also possible to make it truly carbon neutral - depending on how it is managed. If for example we manage a forest area whereby only 1% of the area is extracted every year (++ carbon emission for production/shipping), and that the growth (carbon sequestration) is significantly more, say 3% (from the remaining 99% area), shouldn't that be viewed as carbon neutral? If people are wondering whether such thing is too-good-to-be-trueut, it is NOT, it can be true. The issue is whether the energy market favors such species and not fixated with the common perception that "plantation" is best and is the only solution.