system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
ELI5: Why is burning wood (local, natural) considered bad for the environment, yet naturally occurring forest fires considered good for climate stabilization?

I live in a slightly out-of-the-city area near some vast mountains. Wood-burning fireplaces are banned across the county. I understand that burning wood in the home (even if it's natural wood, locally sourced) is terrible for urban areas and may release chemicals that can harm the home environment. I understand that. I also understand that studies are showing wood burning in general is bad for the environment.   However, I'm also reading that forest fires (naturally occurring ones) are good for the environment beyond the renewal of their immediate flora and that the releasing of carbon into the atmosphere does help in some way to cool the planet (brown carbon particles rising up higher than black carbon particles).

I'm a bit confused then why I'm being told it's wrong for me to burn wood in my backyard fire pit, even though I'm using wood that is sourced locally (local trees that I've felled myself and dried). A neighbor is threatening to call the police if they smell wood burning from my fire pit. What's wrong with a little maintained, monitored fire in this case?

Can you explain this to me like I'm five?
gpt
Lots of small forest fires are better than a few huge forest fires. Without human intervention forest fires should be frequent but small. When humans prevent all fires the fuel accumulates and eventually turns into a huge fire that cannot be controlled and does more damage than a lot of little fires combined. The idea of controlled fires deliberately set by humans is to simulate nature without allowing random fires in inhabited areas.

I don’t know the reasoning behind your local laws. But that’s the reasoning behind controlled forest fires.