U.S. policy could do a lot better job supporting renewable energy, according to industry experts at a renewable energy conference today in Washington, DC, hosted by the American Council for Renewable Energy.

John Graham, the president of BP Wind Energy, renewed calls for long-term policy stability, citing sharp drop-offs in wind development as tax credits expired in 1999, 2001, and 2003. Since those credits are expected to expire again in the next few years--and since wind companies have three- to five-year time schedules--the wind industry could soon see another such slowdown, in addition to the hit its taken from the recession. He called on Congress to set up longer term credits, and a cap and trade system, to help wind projects get funding.

Steen Riisgaard, the CEO of Novozymes, based in Denmark, had more specific recommendations for the biofuels industry. He said the current 10 percent limit on the amount of ethanol in gasoline is slowing down the industry in the United States. He said that the EPA should raise what he called this "arbitrary limit" on ethanol content to 15 percent. The current limit effectively puts a cap on the amount of ethanol that can be sold in the U.S. Eventually flex fuel vehicles that run on E85 (85 percent ethanol) could increase the amount of ethanol purchased, but so far sales have been limited by the number of fueling stations that sell ethanol and the number of cars that can run on high percentages of ethanol. If the EPA raises the amount of ethanol that can be incorporated into regular gasoline, the market for ethanol could quickly climb. But higher percentages of ethanol are controversial because they could cause damage in some engines or void warranties.

Riisgaard's other suggestions sounded less controversial. He wants the federal government to require 50 percent of all new vehicles in the next couple of years to be flex fuel vehicles capable of running on 85 percent ethanol (which seems feasible given the low cost of doing this), to require 25 percent of the largest gas stations to install E-85 pumps by 2014 (funded by reducing subsidies to the gasoline industry), and to require federal agencies to buy only flex-fuel vehicles and use only E-85 in new vehicles. Finally he called on the Department of Energy to send out what remains of $480 million already approved for funding advanced biofuels. Do this, he said, and you'll create 100,000 jobs, and keep the rest of the world from overtaking the current U.S. lead in biofuels.

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.