What he fails to do is add that with natural forest growth and human interevention in additional forestation, the rate at which wood is growing is 20 times the rate of logging.
If the boreal forest was disappearing at such an alarming rate as he implies, he would be hard pressed to explain how is it that the tree cover of North America is now bigger than it was 100 years ago.
The other thing he fails to point out is that for his purposes, second-growth beech and maple forests "don't count". He only looks at the white pine forest which was logged off in the 1800s. They actually show maps of "frontier forest" as it was 8000 years ago and compare it to today. Much of North Amercia shows as devoid of trees when in fact there is much tree cover, only of different species of trees.
Disctimination against beech and maple.