I read the article and I'm confused

Why are emissions based on the land and not the volume of lumber produced vs the number of trees replanted?

If I cut a tree down, and turn it into furniture or build a house that my family uses for a generation, is that whole log a ghg emission?

Why should we report forest fires as emissions? It would dwarf many industries that we should improve, and turn the measure into a cudgel to beat us with instead of a tool.

Obviously forest management is an issue, but their emissions were like 5x the rest of all our emissions combined. If you add that you everyone will go "wow, Canadians are the biggest polluters on the planet, why should my country bother when they're so awful". It doesn't help anything.

The causes of the fire aren't clear, last year was the hottest year on record, it's kind of pinning all the blame on Canada despite warming being caused by all countries.

I'm all for doing better, but I just feel more confused.

No problem. We will solve our housing crisis by building everything out of concrete then -- an even higher emitter.

So what I'm hearing is "We should move logging to China so we can pollute even more, and then pollute even more when we ship lumber across the Pacific"

Is that about right?