Is a market-based cap-and-trade system the answer to the nation's climate change and energy concerns?

Reaching any kind of nationwide consensus could be difficult. Even a three-person panel at a Salt Lake City event on Thursday had trouble agreeing on elements of the issue.

Speaking at the National Conference of Editorial Writers in downtown Salt Lake City, state energy adviser Dianne Nielson made the case that the strategy to mitigate future energy development and control carbon emissions is "much larger than the issue."

"It is a strategy that needs to include a diverse energy portfolio," she told the audience at the Salt Lake City Hilton. "That means the resources we're depending on now and new resources. It means renewables, it means nuclear, it means clean fossil (fuels) … everything that we could reasonably bring to that portfolio that will help us achieve our energy goals."

She described "cap and trade" as a mechanism for providing a structure to move forward a more efficient plan for reducing carbon emissions in the years ahead, but warned that it wouldn't work unless it is embraced worldwide.

"If we only address emissions from electricity (generated by coal-fired power plants), we will have failed to reduce greenhouse gases globally in an effective, affordable, market-sustainable manner," she said.

Speaking from the perspective of an energy producer, Kimball Rasmusen, president and chief executive officer of Deseret Power, said the current proposed carbon-trading market might do little to actually reduce the effects of climate change.

During his presentation, Rasmusen cited data indicating that if all coal-fire power plants in the country were to be eliminated in the next 100 years, the amount of temperature change would be less than one degree Celsius.

He stated that the market-based cap-and-trade system currently under consideration in Washington, D.C., would have a negative effect on many existing power-generation facilities that still have years of useful life left.

He suggested that a better approach might be to remove the profit motive from third-party entities that are not in the power-generation business, who are eyeing positions in the carbon-trading market. In addition, he said setting a limit on emissions is not unreasonable, but only if power producers are given the ability to complete the useful life of their current facilities and also given enough time to build replacement facilities.

"Obviously, I don't want a cap. (But) I'd be willing to set a target by which time our (plant) would have to come offline," he told the Deseret News. "And give me a path forward to (build a non-emitting resource in its place) … (that) would be more workable."