Pathways are proposed for progressing the goal of decarbonizing economies that rely on burning forest biomass for heat and electricity (bioenergy) based on the proposition that this creates benefits for the climate. The potential for negative impacts on biodiversity are either assumed to be benign or ignored. We critically examined claims, and models used to support them, that bioenergy sourced from forest biomass, including logging residues, is either carbon neutral or will reduce net emissions. We also examined evidence about the impacts on forest ecosystem integrity and species' capacity for adaptation. We found that models used to evaluate bioenergy rely on key assumptions that are in themselves capable of delivering results supportive of bioenergy as an effective strategy. Yet there is abundant evidence that these assumptions are invalid and that burning forest biomass for energy is not carbon neutral or beneficial. From our assessment, we concluded that burning forest biomass, including logging residues, increases atmospheric CO2 concentration; land sector reporting using net greenhouse gas inventories obscures the impact of forest harvesting on ecosystem carbon stocks; and biomass energy will most likely displace other renewable energy, rather than fossil fuels. We also found that the use of bioenergy results in major negative cascading impacts for forest ecosystem integrity and consequently a reduction in the resilience and natural adaptive capacity of species in the face of climate change impacts. Bioenergy use is therefore in direct conflict with the commitment to limit the rate of global warming so that ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate change. A rethink is warranted of its role in international and national climate policy, and it should not qualify under renewable energy policies including directives, targets, and other legislated instruments. Together, we conclude that burning forest biomass for bioenergy is not a pathway to climate resilient development.