Wood burning is argued to be 'carbon neutral' because the carbon released in burning would be released anyway in rotting, and the carbon is reabsorbed by re-growth. Furthermore, the forest eventually burns in any case.
But re-growth needs the slow rotting; very little grows from just ashes. Without considering this, we're consuming the capital on which re-growth depends, i.e. the soil.
Also, old growth sequesters considerably more carbon per annum than younger forest. And this is a part of the general nature of the so-called neutrality, namely that it borrows from the future, releasing carbon now in hopes that it will be reabsorbed. It may be reabsorbed, but by then we've already 'borrowed' even more.
This is not to mention the particulates in the emissions. They are poisonous, yet the village of Lumby for example is barely visible from the surrounding hills on a winter day, because of the dense wood-fire smoke. This cannot fail to have a bad effect on people's lungs there.