Your claim was CO2 neutral, it's what I originally replied to.

I'm sure the machines are more efficient compared to older machines and maybe your neighbour knows approximately how much fuel he has to put in to get a a certain number of cubic meters of wood. It would be sort of interesting to know, you can find some data online but it's very situation specific so it's probably not representative. What happens to all the waste? Does most just turn into mulch?

I don't think we'll see battery powered forestry machines any time soon, the batteries would have to be enormous but most importantly there would be no way to charge them.

Fight the big wins, not the very very small ones.

I.e. be a pragmatic, not a fundamentalist.

Also: If you feel like you don't really understand a particular context: please do feel free to stay quiet until you have aquired an understanding of said context.

I don't really get where your passive aggressive reaction suddenly comes from? The main claim, that it's CO2 neutral is false, so I'm trying to get a better understanding of your specific situation and we can maybe also do some napkin math. To do that, you need to provide some details such as what happens to the material that doesn't get turned into wood logs. And if you also know how much gas is being used to provide a certain amount of cubic meters of logs that's even better.

> These are very expensive machines

Both to purchase and maintain. Some operators depreciate ~usd70/hour.

> they'll probably start to be battery powered

Expensive machines are typically worked hard (long hours) when they are working. They need to keep working to make them pay. They typically work in forests not near the iTesla charging point by Starbucks.

When working, fellers are ferocious. The cabs are basically bulletproof.

Agreed. I wrote "will start to". There'll be pressure for that.

And perhaps in 10 years with new battery tech and more remote charging infrastructure they'll actually be mostly fossil-free.