Let's review the news of the weekend on climate change:

• Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, amongst others for making the USA 'play a more constructive role' on climate change.
• Preparatory climate change talks in Bangkok didn't make much progress, partially because the USA wants to ditch the Kyoto framework and doesn't want to commit to significant reductions
• US Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham reveal what a bipartisan climate change bill would look like in the New York Times

To start with the bill, it would focus on subsidies for 'clean' coal; deregulation for nuclear power; more oil and gas exploration; a ceiling and a floor for prizes in the emissions trading scheme, and carbon tariffs. This is close to what you'd get if you'd sit down and ask: 'how do I cause the maximum of environmental damage and international hostility with my climate change bill?'. Close, because there'd also have to be lavish subsidies for biofuels. But rest assured, there will be plenty of funding for that as the bill introduced by Kerry and Barbara Boxer makes its way through the Senate.

It almost makes the House bill (ACES) look good.

Now, it's been clear for a while that there wouldn't be a good bill from Congress. In fact, since April 1st this year. That is when almost half of the Senate's Democrats decided to vote for a Republican amendment that blocked the use of the budget reconciliation procedure to pass climate change legislation. The practical implication of this is that they will now need 60 out of 100 votes to pass a bill, instead of 50 (plus the Vice President).

Because of this problem, it has been intriguing to look at what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is up to. The EPA has the power to regulate greenhouse gases, as has been ruled by the US Supreme Court. Since the change of administrations, it has been laying the groundwork for its own emissions trading scheme. The EPA has implemented a reporting requirement for large stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions, like factories and power plants. At the moment the it is working on a permit requirement. Once these are in place, it could draft a reduction requirement, congruent with whatever reduction Obama signs up to.

If this sounds promising, it's worth keeping in mind that the US government is not going to be able to move much on climate change until it has finished its effort to enact universal health care, as Christopher Mackey has noted. Moving aggressively on climate change right now would anger Congress and endanger the chance to get healthcare reform passed. And regardless of that, the timeframe for getting finalised EPA regulation on emissions reductions is more on the scale of a year.

There needs to be strong political backing from the Obama administration if the EPA is to proceed with regulating greenhouse gas reductions, as there will be a fight with Congress. So far it has been Obama's style and political philosophy to focus on building consensus, and he will also have to cooperate with Congress on other matters once they are finished with the healthcare bill. So the obstacles to meaningful action by the US will still be big.

But here we can get back to the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama says that the prize is 'an affirmation of American leadership'. In climate change politics, that leadership is lacking. He has also rightly notes that the prize is a 'call to action'. There is a large potential for US action to seal the deal on climate change. But Obama will have to break a few eggs at home.