Dr. William Keeton, Professor of Forest Ecology and Forestry, UVM, discusses how the scientific community is divided on the question of which forest management strategies are most effective at increasing carbon sequestration and storage in forest ecosystems. There is an extensive literature showing that, despite increased rates of carbon uptake and flux to wood products, intensified forest management results in a net increase in carbon emissions. Others have argued the opposite in several recent papers, maintaining that intensified forest management actually maximizes net sequestration. Both views are supported by evidence, but are limited by uncertainties and assumptions in the carbon accounting. Are carbon management strategies mutually exclusive? In this Gund Tea, Bill argues that they are not. In fact, they are potentially complimentary if employed within a broader framework of landscape management, so long as net carbon storage increases and net emissions decrease. Within the near term scientific research may converge on a unified set of recommendations through improved carbon accounting and modeling.