There is increasing international concern over the accumulation of greenhouse gases in particular carbon dioxide in the earths atmosphere and its potential effects on global warming. There is an increasing awareness that extensive planting of woody tree species would be one practical approach towards slowing down the rate of increase by carbon sequestration and eventually bringing about a carbon balance trading whereby carbon credits could be purchased to offset carbon emissions. There is growing recognition that rubber trees have an important role with regard to their contribution to the environment and in our efforts to manage greenhouse gases. This paper re-examines data on carbon sequestration in rubber to highlight its potentials in relation to this emerging field and presents some economic models which could form the basis for smart partnerships between landowners, downstream manufacturers and national of global multinationals for purposes of sustaining rubber cultivation in the country. Studies on biomass determination and carbon sequestration were carried out at six sites on various clones ranging in age from 3 to 31 years. Data shows that the total biomass produced by a tree is 588 kg and which extrapolates to 158.76 tonnes per hectare of rubber. The amount of carbon sequestered in one hectare of 27-year-old stand of rubber trees is 72.36 tonnes, the major portion of which is sequestered in the trunks and branches amounting to 40.5 tonnes. The total amount of carbon sequestered in one hectare of rubber trees made up of tree biomass, rubbe produced and leaf liter is computed to be 319 tonnes. The exemplary growth performance of some promising new clones and genotypes, coupled with the greater biomass produced with higher densities of planting suggest that values for carbon sequestration will be much higher than that indicated by data presented in this paper. It is apparent from this data that rubber trees due to their greater biomass sequester more carbon when compared with published data for timber species planted in forests and oil palm and these are elobarated upon in greater detail in the paper. Several industries, which emit carbon into the atmosphere, may need to buy carbon credits to offset the emissions and this could be in the form of providing funds to plant rubber trees for carbon sequestration. In the first economic model it is proposed that the major plantation companies and consolidated holdings managed by government agencies will continue to plant rubber on a portion of their respective land ranks and the funds made available by industries purchasing carbon credits will be used to compensate them for the potential loss in earnigs due to non-cultivation of oil palm. In the second model it is proposed that industries that need to purchase carbon credits will directly fund the planting of rubber in land concessions to be given by various state governments in existing forest areas, which have been heavily logged. In this model it is envisaged that there will be a smart partnership between the industries purchasing carbon credits, the downstream furniture manufacturers requiring raw materials and the plantation companies, which will provide the expertise to establish the rubber forest plantation. The details on the working of these models and the cost implications are given in the paper. The government because of its organisational infrastructure may have to take the initiation in creating a national prototype carbon fund aalong the lines being worked out for the proposed World Bank prototype carbon fund. The creation of this fund could be the stimulus to spearhead the continued cultivation of rubber in the country using the framework outlined in the two proposed economic models.