We studied three approaches to carbon management: (1) the potential gains in CO₂ mitigation from altering forest management, (2) the potential role of carbon credits in contributing to economic return from forest land with various carbon credit assumptions, and (3) the potential for the land base of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to be used in greenhouse gas mitigation.  (1) Regarding forest management, using the current USDOE 1605(b) guidelines, alteration of management practices in a northern hardwoods stand offered limited but measurable improvements to carbon storage (a gain of  <0.5 Mt CO₂ ha^-1 y^-1 over a reference case).  More promising was changing from pulp wood harvest to bioenergy harvest, resulting in a gain of >2 Mt CO₂ ha^-1 y^-1 compared with the reference case. (2) Using various assumptions about carbon credits in a red pine model system, we found that carbon credits offered an additional revenue source that would sometimes allow the decision to plant abandoned fields to be financially viable where it would not be viable with only revenue from timber management.  Furthermore, carbon credits shift the optimal financial harvest date to a longer rotation than would be chosen without carbon credits.  This allows reforestation to also qualify for carbon credits because a substantial change in management occurs, and these older stands sequester more carbon.  The first two findings [(1) and (2)] are very specific case studies and may not be broadly applicable.  (3) Finally, we are evaluating land suitable for carbon management projects such as afforestation and inventory-related considerations for providing bioenergy feedstocks in this region.  Our results to date highlight the promise of bioenergy in this region as a source of sustainable energy and greenhouse gas mitigation.  Some potential also exists for the use of afforestation and altered silvicultural practices as CO₂ mitigation tools.