Unlike burning coal, burning wood can be sustainable. That carbon was in the air a couple of years ago. Growing forests for firewood is probably not the most efficient way to use that land, but as long as you plant and grow new trees at the same rate you burn them, it is carbon neutral.

That doesn't mean it's always sustainable of course; there's a lot of destructive logging in the world, and that should stop.

Burning wood can even be carbon negative if you do it right - though this tends to create even more particulate pollution.

Forest are far too valuable to just burn them, we should do everything we can to save ecosystems that are threatened by global warming. The obvious answer is more nuclear because it's by far the least intrusive source of energy.

The problem with burning wood is not CO2 but the particulate matter it produces if not properly filtered (which it usually isn't).

That is true, but also a separate problem. And also still a problem with coal.

Yes a separate problem.