Last week researchers and policy experts gathered at MIT to talk about geo-engineering--a subject that's becoming more popular in the face of concern over inaction on climate change.

The upcoming United Nations climate change convention in Copenhagen seems unlikely to produce the binding and stringent agreement needed to sharply curtail greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, greenhouse concentrations continue to mount, driving scientists who were once opposed to the idea of tinkering with the planet to reconsider it.

Now they've got another reason to be worried. Earlier this year a climate bill that would've limited greenhouse emissions and helped renewable energy sources compete with fossil fuels seemed well on its way. In June a version passed the House. But then other matters--mostly health care reform--distracted Congress, and a Senate version of the bill got bogged down. The Senate recently took up the bill again, but yesterday a report in the Washington Post declared that "there is almost no hope for passage" of the bill.

Democrats are divided over the bill, and Republicans have been vocally opposing it. If the report is right, countries meeting in Copenhagen will have even more reason to criticize the U.S. for inaction, and to use that as a reason to delay a climate treaty or water it down.

That's one way to look at it, at any rate. Here's another: Copenhagen is probably doomed already--why the rush to push legislation through? That's essentially what Republican Senator George Voinovich (Ohio), who opposes the current bill, reportedly said last week, "Wouldn't it be smarter to take our time and do it right?"

It certainly is hard to be against getting something right. But will slowing things down lead to a better climate bill? Probably not, as long as the chief objection is that the bill will make energy more expensive, something that seems unavoidable. But if the delay can lead to a better system for distributing those costs equitably, and if along the way inefficient subsidies can be weeded out and emissions caps tightened (wishful thinking?), it could be worth the wait.

The Washington Post reports today that the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill that would establish a cap and trade system for limiting carbon dioxide emissions. A cap and trade system is a market-based approach designed to allow utilities and other major emitters of carbon dioxide to find the cheapest way to reduce their emission. It involves setting a cap on emissions and then issuing allowances to emitters. Many experts support auctioning off those credits, but the bill gives 85 percent of them away.

In a similar European cap-and-trade system, giving the allowances away seems to have led to windfall profits for utilities.

President Obama originally supported auctioning the allowances, and budget projections included revenue from such auctions. That money would have been used for clean-energy R&D, and for offsetting energy price increases causes by the cap on emissions.

The bill still faces several hurdles before becoming law. It may undergo review by other committees in the House before coming to the entire House for a vote. Then it has to get past the Senate, which has blocked cap-and trade bills in the past. This bill, however, has strong support from the Obama administration and, according to the Post, extra momentum because of the Energy and Commerce Committee's approval.

President Obama is expected to sign the stimulus bill into law today. While there's been a lot of debate about whether the provisions in the bill are the best way to stimulate the economy--for example, some of the money won't be spent for years--it's pretty clear that the bill is good news for businesses involved in reducing the use of fossil fuels.

The New York Times has a detailed breakdown of the final stimulus bill as it relates to energy here. The Wall Street Journal also has a useful graphic that puts that spending into context. The Congressional Budget Office details the costs of the bill over several years here (PDF). And, in a story posted today, I break down how the bill could help kick-start an advanced battery industry in the United States.

In previous blogs, I've mentioned two key provisions for renewable energy that were up for debate because of differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Both made it through.

The first allows businesses that invest in building renewable-energy facilities (such as wind and solar farms) to claim a government grant that covers 30 percent of the investment, rather than claiming a tax credit. The change is important, as many companies can't claim the credit because they have no tax liability. (The tax credits plus grants are expected to cost the government $14 billion.)

The second is a credit for building manufacturing facilities for renewable energy as well as advanced batteries, which could, for example, encourage solar-panel manufactures to build plants in the United States.