Since all timber eventually rots and decays, returning its carbon to the atmosphere, this is not a 'sustainable' solution; from the rabid green perspective all it will do is postpone the apocalypse by a couple of generations. Your great-great-grandchildren will not thank you when their nation full of decaying houses soars to unprecedented heights of temperature and the accompanying hurricanes, floods and droughts blast them off the surface of the planet, as per the official AGW scenario.

Of course, you COULD advocate growing wood and making houses out of it merely because it's a sensible thing to do; but trying to exploit green propaganda for rational purposes is a fool's errand.

Onya Jon J:

...And to take the next logical step against the (unpopular) forever-green dialogue, we should further consider that once in the past, timber was freely available in our forests, and was sustainable harvested under the normal economic rules of supply and demand.

...Timber for construction was pilloried by the Green Mafia, but now mysteriously,it's OK to use again, provided it is supplied to "Green thinking" consumers to build their North-Facing unrealistic Architect designed "pansy" five bedroom bungalows in leafy expensive suburbs...Shame the vast majority of our struggling society is priced from the market by their "corruption" of the facts.

But there is a very large irony here – the more successful we are at storing carbon in forests and forest products, the more we will be able to continue with business as usual, which is massively producing atmospheric carbon and at an ever greater rate as the population rapidly grows, and per-capita output increases, especially in China and India.

Large-scale forests planted primarily for carbon sequestration, done in isolation of a variety of other mechanisms, will thus work AGAINST the long-term reduction of carbon emissions.

What we need is mechanisms that will make us change our ways – reducing per-capita carbon emissions, really get the ball rolling with renewable carbon-neutral and much lower carbon output technologies, and heading quickly towards a stable population.

We need a holistic approach, not one that is centred on one small aspect of carbon production, capture and storage.

Large-scale forests could be a good part of an overall strategy, but they are certainly not the answer in isolation.

I think this post misses the main point, being:

Humans filter or reject negative information and let us not forget in this context that Ignorance Is Bliss. Humans surround themselves with positive information about themselves and their astonishing exploits. Human never tire of basking in their everlasting glory. Humans consider themselves to be the greatest thing the Universe ever produced. Humans think, albeit unconsciously, that the goal of all Creation, starting with the Big Bang, was to create them.

This is clearly Human Conceit!

Most of human self-evaluation has nothing to do with reality, of course, and the artificial world we have created.

Needless to say, highlighting negative information is not a popular thing to do...

Thus we get the unassailable arrogance, the astonishing hubris—the Human Conceit—we see in those who run human societies.

As such, it is matters little on who can grow a tree, does the tree really store carbon, can we as a species survive?

Being a realist, I would surmise 'no' to a majority of the above, notwithstanding the ability to grow or harvest trees and timber!

There seems to be some confusion between a forest and a tree plantation.
A forest normally consists of many different types of trees and vegetation, and normally inhabited by many different forms of wildlife.
A tree plantation normally consists of one type of tree and very few types of vegetation.
The Greens objected to our native forests being logged as the forest cannot be replaced with a forest.