Prescribed fire to reduce forest fuels has been routinely applied to reduce wildfire risk in many parts of the world. It has also been proposed that prescribed fire can be used to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although prescribed fire creates emissions, if the treatment also decreases the incidence of subsequent wildfires, it is possible for the net outcome to be an emissions decline. Previous studies have suggested prescribed fire, at the frequencies required to materially impact wildfire occurrence, generally leads to net emissions increases. A focus on emissions means any change in carbon storage within the ecosystem remains unaccounted for; because living, dead, and soil carbon pools are characterized by different residence times, a re-distribution of carbon amongst these pools may either reduce or increase long-term ecosystem carbon stores. A full ecosystem carbon model has been developed to investigate the implications of prescribed fire management on total Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance (NECB), inclusive of both emissions and carbon storage. Consistent with previous work, the results suggested limited potential for reducing net GHG emissions through applying prescribed fire, with higher emissions from prescribed fire approximately offset by lower emissions and avoided carbon losses from the subsequent reduction in wildfire frequency. For example, shortening the prescribed fire interval from 25 to 10 years resulted in a NECB sequestration that was typically less than ±0.4 Mg C ha-1 yr-1, or less than approximately 0.1% of the total ecosystem carbon storage. Hence, whilst there was limited opportunity for achieving emission abatement outcomes from changing prescribed fire management, there were no significant emission penalties for doing so. These results suggest land managers should be free to adopt prescribed fire regimes to target specific management outcomes, without significantly impacting net emissions or total ecosystem carbon storage over the long term.