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.

A draft of the Senate's version of a climate bill has been released. The official version is scheduled to be unveiled officially today in the Senate.

The move comes on the heels of President Obama's speech to the United Nations in which he called for action on climate change. A House climate bill passed back in May, but since then climate change has taken a back seat to health care reform. There's been some concern that no climate change legislation will be passed before a meeting in Copenhagen this December where world leaders are supposed to work out a new climate change treaty. With no law in hand, U.S. negotiators may find it hard to sell other countries on strict emissions reductions.

The draft bill tightens emissions caps somewhat compared to the House bill, calling for a 20 percent reduction in emissions by 2020 compared to 2005 levels, rather than a 17 percent reduction. It also contains sections devoted to reducing emissions specifically from transportation sources, as well as incentives for emissions reducing technology such as carbon capture and sequestration, nuclear power plants, and renewable energy.

But much work remains before the bill can become law. For example, some parts of the bill have only placeholder language, awaiting action from committees. Nevertheless, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has reportedly said that the bill is on track to be passed by the Senate before the Copenhagen meeting. That's not to say it will become law by then, of course, as it will still have to be reconciled with the House Bill.

The massive energy bill that would set a cap on carbon dioxide emissions and provide other incentives and requirements for clean energy has passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a slim margin.

It's far from becoming law, though. Passing the bill in the Senate will be more difficult: many Democrats voted against the bill in the House, something that can't happen in the Senate if it is to pass. What's more, President Obama isn't entirely happy with the bill and will be pushing to get some changes made, including removing a provision designed to encourage other countries to set up emissions goals of their own, according to the Washington Post.

Some experts hope that the bill's passage in the House will prove a strong bargaining chip later this year when world leaders meet to discuss international caps on emissions.