I'll deal quickly with the carbon issue first. I think we're in agreement that you should manage for it. I think the devil is in the details of how we do it. To some extent, it's important to recognize that you're dealing with a biological resource, and if we don't harvest often, in some cases nature will, in the form of fires or insects. We have to be mindful of that. We could well see the boreal forest being a source, and not a sink, of carbon for the atmosphere.
One argument I'll put out is that instead of going for a longer rotation, you should go for shorter, because how we take carbon out of the atmosphere is through sequestering it. This is through growing. The key thing then is what product you produce from it. If you store that, for example, as lumber in homes, that's not going back into the atmosphere. You can see how this works over time and the whole life cycle, but it's open to debate how we operationalize this. I think where we're in agreement is that one should manage for it.
Quickly, on the sawlog exports, people don't generally like to export logs. You do it because there's no other alternative. The reason you don't is that when you ship a log as opposed to lumber, your transportation costs go up dramatically. Right now it's interesting, and my sense is that probably the biggest advocates of softwood log exports from B.C. are the aboriginal groups, because they've got some cutting rights and they don't have a market at home.