Lot of talks about deforestation with examples that we have not recovered from today (example Røros).
Before the switch to coal, wood was the primary thermal energy souce for humans (well, after direct passive solar heat). By the 19th century, and in many parts of the world, centuries or millennia prior, woodfuel burning, directly and as charcoal for kilns and smelters, had deforested vast parts of the globe, transforming many formerly forested parts of the world to desert or scrub (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Lebanon, Greece, Italy).
We have the dual problems of 1) replacing coal, oil, and natural gas, and 2) removing CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans.
Burning wood accomplishes #1, but not #2.
There's the additional slight problem that the scale of present energy consumption, let alone increases which would bring another 5-8 billions of souls up to modern European or US standards of living, largely defined by per-capita energy consumption, greatly exceeds total available biomass production in total, not merely wood growth.
the easiest way would be to just bury the wood (we dug it out in the first place, right?) but we need to make sure that it doesn't rot and thus reenter the atmosphere. that's where burning makes sense.
Skyscrapers can't be built out of concrete either. It's the rebar that is the structural component that makes it possible to build skyscrapers. We can build skyscrapers with mass timber and steel reinforcement nowadays.
Though from what I've heard, it's difficult to figure out if they are net negative CO2, and of course the timber needs to come from sustainably managed forests.