This is a similar finding to research by the ANU which found old growth and mature natural forests still sink and store subsatantial cvolumes of carbon.

Bartlett behaving as though he is ignorant still denies this role for forests. He may recognize it but he needs to move quickly because as the climate changes and carbon builds up 2 pressures reduce the ability of forests and plants to sink carbon removing a major regulator.

Further no dumb and costly woodchip exports are required only a change of the carbon trading rules to allow natural forestsa to be treated just like plantations if the owner wishes making wood more valuable as the value of carbon increases in a trading scheme.

Would this mean that GM eucalypt plantations at the equator are growing faster too? How will Tassie plantations compete?

For God’s sake, people aren’t still quoting that discredited ANU load of crap are they?
click on the following link for an eloquent critique: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8094
That research was based on a theoretical model, which itself is under attack, and no field measurements have been taken to back up its findings. The values suggested are far greater than anyone else has calculated, and some have suggested “there would have to be trees growing on top of trees” to return the amounts the ANU study claims.
In any event, tracts of very old forest that are approaching the natural limits of their life are known to be shedding carbon rather than continuing to add it. Because of the circumstances under whivh it was conducted, the ANU research has a bias towards preserving old growth forest. I suspect the sponsors of the research are in need of re-inventing themselves, especially as more than 97% of the formally assessed high conservation value old growth is now already fully protected. The remaining area contains significant Special Timbers that are the subject of different management strategies to that of general native forest, such as no clear felling, small quantities on any visit, and very long rotations. Such areas are just not going to be forfeited. I suspect the strategy is to build a case for not just no old growth, but no native forest logging. Best of luck, but I wouldn’t bet on it. There is just too much economic value in harvesting and using high value timber. It is not a question of either/or. We can have carbon storage and trading, AND usable timber. 
The real point here is that the total net biomass in Tasmania in the form of trees is actually increasing, and this is despite the total annual harvest of all timber, including about a million tons of firewood. Less than one per cent of Tasmania’s forest is harvested in any year, and all that is harvested is regenerated. The existing forest is adding bulk, as are the areas of plantation that are being established. (Note: since December 2007 native forest can only be regenerated as native forest. Plantations can now only be established on previously alienated land, such as redundant pasture.)
As a woodworker I am interested to see the continuation of a carefully managed Special Timbers sector, the continuation of native forest logging to provide appropriate quantities of high quality eucalypt saw log and veneer logs for appearance grade timber, and a mixture of native forest and plantation sourced timber for structural grade products, and the production of appropriate and carefully managed quantities of chips and pulp wood. Now go and find something else to faff about

(3) Woodworker said… “The real point here is that the total net biomass in Tasmania in the form of trees is actually increasing, and this is despite the total annual harvest of all timber, …… and all that is harvested is regenerated. ….( Note: since December 2007 native forest can only be regenerated as native forest. Plantations can now only be established on previously alienated land, such as redundant pasture.)”

And you believe that bullshit woodworker?

Prove it!

We can PROVE otherwise! ….. wait for it>>>

woodpecker you are like a broken record - all you can do is spout FT spin. Do any of the things you say NOT come from a FT or FIAT or Gunns brochure? 

Funny how you refused to answer Peter Brenner’s question, or address any of the other points raised in that thread about sustainable forestry practices. Gee I wonder why?

If you had the guts to actually debate the issues, instead of just churning out the same old bullshit ad nauseam, your posts - and you - might have more credibility.

Kate, (#5), don’t you mean a scratched record? A broken record would not even play. I am not spouting FT spin, and it certainly is not all I can do. I have rarely seen, and never read a Gunn’s brochure. I can’t recall seeing a brochure from FIAT, and while FT publish quite a few brochures, I have never closely studied very many of them.
Keep ya pants on, Kate! I have not refused to debate Peter Brenner’s question. I am preparing a response, but I have not had the opportunity to put much time into it so far. I’m sure that when it is finished, you will find it suitably offensive and annoying. In preparing it, I had a number of questions to put to FT’s senior research scientist, but he has not been back to me yet. I know he is busy, he is finalising work for a PhD.
I don’t lack the guts to debate issues, but I can’t see the point of wating time on people who don’t deserve it

I have to agree Gilmours. On another thread, ‘The scalping of Mt Dismal’ are photos of a current clearfell operation.
It is a constant and aggressive removal of native forest.
We have been informed by mail that the trees and vegetation will be replaced with… plantation.