Personally I find this latest news to be no shock, but this latest report suggests that the Kyoto Protocol actually encourages deforestation:

Without the opportunity to sell carbon credits, HFLD countries would be deprived of a major incentive to maintain low deforestation rates. Since drivers of deforestation are mobile, deforestation reduced elsewhere could shift to HFLD countries, constituting a significant setback to stabilizing global concentrations of greenhouse gases at the lowest possible levels.

These HFLD countries (high forest cover and low rates of deforestation) are losing out in the new governmental scheme, and so in order to compete they have to start deforesting.  They actually gain benefit from deforestation now.  Much of the Kyoto Protocol was written this way.  1990 level of emissions were chosen because it most benefited Germany, which had just reunited it's two halves.  This is more than just the law of unintended consequences.  That implies that the goal of the Kyoto protocol was generally to make the world better.  The reality is that government agencies latched on to environmentalism as a way to exert more power for their own financial and political gain.  It just so happens that liberal environmentalists are really gullible and swallowed the bait.  Via Hit & Run.

But of course, it doesn't stop there.  Carbon offsets, even if not under Kyoto Protocol are all the rage these days.  Businesses are popping up everywhere offering to offset your carbon heavy lifestyle.  Every Democrat with a Super-Sized McMansion who is running for office promises that the megawatts of power they draw from coal plants annually are being properly offset, even as they require you to go back to the stone age of technology to save the planet.  Of course, carbon offsets really don't do anything but make you feel good about yourself, and have a lighter wallet:

With a click, a credit card and $99, visitors can pay a Silver Spring nonprofit group, Carbonfund.org, to "offset" a year's worth of greenhouse-gas emissions. Whatever the customer put into the atmosphere -- by flying, driving, using electricity -- the site promises to cancel out, by funding projects that reduce pollutants.
...
A closer look reveals an unregulated market in which some improvements bought by customers are only estimated, extrapolated, hoped-for or nil. Some offsets support projects that would have gone forward anyway. Others deliver results difficult to measure.

Carbonfund.org, for example, has advertised offsets that finance wind farms and tree-planting projects. But some wind farms said the donations haven't led to anything new. And the benefits from some tree projects were unclear enough that Carbonfund.org no longer uses them to back offsets.

Just be careful describing all these things as snake oil to loudly.  You'll be slapped with the "climate change denier" label... and some will suggest you go to jail for it:

At the Live Earth concert in New Jersey last month, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. denounced climate-change skeptics as "corporate toadies" for "villainous" enemies of America and the human race. "This is treason," he shouted, "and we need to start treating them now as traitors."

Some environmentalists and commentators have suggested that global-warming "denial" be made a crime, much as Holocaust denial is in some countries. Others have proposed that climate-change dissidents be prosecuted in Nuremberg-style trials. The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen has suggested that television meteorologists be stripped of their American Meteorological Society certification if they dare to question predictions of catastrophic global warming.

A few weeks ago, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Marlo Lewis published an article opposing mandatory limits on carbon-dioxide emissions, arguing that Congress should not impose caps until the technology exists to produce energy that doesn't depend on carbon dioxide. In response to Lewis's reasonable piece, the president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, Michael Eckhart, issued a threat:

"Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America."

Everyone needs religion I guess... even if it's environmentalism.