In the Australian outback they are (aparantly) burning scrub in a controlled way because this means CO2 emissions are lower than letting it grow and then be subject to wild fires.
This doesn't seem to add up to me, as the wild fires can only release carbon that the vegitation had absorbed while it was growing - so the whole thing seems carbon neutral to me...
Anyway - as this burning is (somehow) seen as beneficial it is being funded by a large polluting industry who trade their emissions against it.
I think the flaw in trading is pretty clear -- if every time someone thinks of a way of reducing emissions, then someone increases their emissions by the same amount, then there will never be any overall reduction!
Emissions trading effectively prevents any reduction in emissions - and so is a very bad thing.