This distinction only makes sense if those threes were going to be burned anyways. A can of diesel in a good generator and letting the trees decompose or be used for lumber should be far better in terms of emissions than burning the required amount of wood.
> far better in terms of emissions
Particle emissions isn't what I responded to .. in terms of carbon and greenhouse gases what matters more is trees not being replaced.
In the course of, say, plantation growing timber for lumber generates sufficient burnable wood for landowners and a wider community - the final lumber trees are the ones that weren't weeded out earlier (and burnt) and have been routinely lopped of branches (more burnable wood) to minimize knots, etc.
Forrest management is a thing, timber for lumber, coppicing for regrowth, et al has been going on for several thousand years and has been part of traditional surface carbon cycle.
As has large scale grassland (and forest undercover) burning off for fire management.