The court action comes as the EPA weathers ongoing criticism of its director Stephen Johnson, who was assailed for his decision in December to deny California the right to mandate a 30% reduction in vehicle emissions. That decision was criticised by officials within his own agency.

The journal Nature opined that he had acted in, "reckless disregard for law, science or the agency's own rules - or, it seems, the anguished protests of his own subordinates."

Critics of the agency's inaction in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling argue that it is politically motivated, with Johnson hoping to hand the problem off to the next administration. The agency h...

The court action comes as the EPA weathers ongoing criticism of its director Stephen Johnson, who was assailed for his decision in December to deny California the right to mandate a 30% reduction in vehicle emissions. That decision was criticised by officials within his own agency.

The journal Nature opined that he had acted in, "reckless disregard for law, science or the agency's own rules - or, it seems, the anguished protests of his own subordinates."

Critics of the agency's inaction in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling argue that it is politically motivated, with Johnson hoping to hand the problem off to the next administration. The agency had adopted a strategy devised by a conservative thinktank argues David Bookbinder of the environmental group the Sierra Club.

"While EPA has spent seven years finding new and creative ways to delay, obfuscate, deceive, block action in the states, and otherwise refuse to take action on global warming, it seems it took them only a week to do what was demanded by the Heritage Foundation and other special interests," he said. "This latest provocation, combined with a nearly decade-long trail of broken promises from President Bush on down the line, left us with no other choice but to take EPA back to Court."

...Guardian