|
【作者简介】
马存利，山西财经大学副教授。
【注释】Massachusetts v．EPA，127 S．Ct．1438．at 1452—63（2007）．
Massachusetts v．EPA，127 S．CL 1438，at 1467（2007）．
Luian v．Defenders of Wildlife，504 U．S．．555（1992）．
Georgia v．Tennessee Copper Company，206 U．S．230（1907）
Cf．Ann Woolhandler＆Michael G．Collins，State Standing，81 va．L．Rev．387，506（1995）（suggesting that it would be appropriate to analyze state standing based on traditional common—law in—terests in propelty and liberty under a modified Lujan test）．
See Thomas W．Merrill，Global Warming as a Public Nuisance，30 Colum．J．Envtl．L．293，at 304（2005）．
See Thomas W．Merrill，Global Warming as a Public Nuisance，30 Colum．J．Envtl．L．293，304，at 305（2005）．
See Kathryn A．Watts＆Amy J．Wildermuth，Massachusetts v．EPA：Breaking New Ground on Issues Other Than Global Warming，102 Nw．U．L．Rev．Colloquy J，at 6（2007）．
See Thomas W．Mereill，Global Warming as a Public Nuisance，30 Colum．J．Envtl．L．293、304，at 300—01（2005）．
See Barry G．Rabe，Mikael Romdn，＆Arthur N．Dobelis，State Competition as a Source Driving Climate Change Mitigation，14 N．Y．U．Envtl．L．J．1，29（2005）．
Lujan v．Defenders of Wildlife，504 U．s．555，at 560—61（1992）．
Friends of the Earth v．Laidlaw Envtl．Servs．，528 u．S．167（2000）．
Friends of the Earth v．Laidlaw Envtl．Servs．，528 U．S．167，al 175—76（2000）
Friends of the Earth v．Laidlaw Envtl．Servs．，528 U．s．167，at 181—82（2000）
Friends of the Earth v．Laidlaw Envtl．Servs．，528 U．S．167，at 185（2000）．
Friends of the Earth，Inc．v．Gaston Copper Recycling Corp．，204 F．3d 149（4（th上标）Cir．2000）．
niens of the Earth，Inc．v．Gaston Copper Recycling Corp．，204 F．3d 149，at 113（4（th上标）Cir．2000）．
Friends of the Earth，Inc．v．Caston Copper Recycling Corp．，204 F．3d 149，at 115（4（th上标）Cir．2000）．
Friends ofthe Earth v．Gaston Copper Recycling Corp．，204 F．3d 149，156（4（th上标）Cir．2000）．
Lujan v．Defenders of Wildl/fe，504 U．S．555，563（1992）．
Lujan v．Defenders of Wildlife，504 U．S．555，563（1992）．
Friends of the Earth v．Laidlaw Envtl．Servs．，528 U．S．167，184（2000）．It even appears that some courts consider a spiritual interest a concrete interest．In Defenders of Wildlife v．EnviromerUal Protection Agency，the plaintiffs liked to watch and take pictures of different animal species，as well as hike and camp in their habitats．420 F．3d 946，956（9（th上标）Cir．2005）．
Sierra Club v．Tenn．Valley Auth．，430 F．3d 1337，1344（11（th上标）Cir．2005）；see also Laidlaw，528 U．S．at184．
See Sierra Club，430 F．3d at 1345．
Lujan v．Defenders of Wildli，504 U．S．555，575 n．1（1992）．
Friends of the Earth v．Gaston Copper Recycling Corp．，204 F．3d 149，156（4（th上标）Cir．2000）；see also Fed．Election Comm’n v．Akins，524 U．S．11，34—35（1998）（stating that those with generalized grievances should pursue those claims in the political branches of the government，not within the judieiary）．
Animal Legal Def．Fund v．Glickman，154 F．3d 426，432—33（D．c．cir．1998）
Animal Legal Def．Fund v．Glickman，154 F．3d 426，432—33（D．c．cir．1998）
Massachusetts v．EPA，415 F．3d 50，59—60（D．C．Cir．2005）．
Massachusetts v．EPA，415 F．3d 50，60（D．C．Cir．2005）．
Lujan v．Defenders of Wildlife，504 u．s．555，560—61（1992）．
Lujan，504 U．S．at 564 n．2．
See Holman W．Jenkins，Jr．，A Global Warming Worksheet，Wall St．J．，Feb．1，2006，at A15．
Lujan v．Defenders of Wildlife，504 U．S．555，560（1992）．
See Holman W．Jenkins，Jr．，A Global Wanning Worksheet，Wall St ．J．，Feb．1，2006，at A15．
Mark LaRochelle＆Peter Spencer，“Global Warming”Science：Fact vs．Fiction．Consumers’Res．Mag．，July 2001．at 5．
See Sallie Baliunas，Full of Hot Air：A Climate Alarmist Takes on“Criminals Against Humanitv，”Reason，Oct．2005，at 64．
Texas v．United States，523 U．S．296，300—01（1998）．
Lujan v．Defenders of Witdlife，584 U．S．555，567 n．3（1992）．
Declaration of Melanie Duchin at 2，niends of the Earth，Inc．v．Watson，No．C 02—4106（JSW），2005 WL 2035596（N．D．Cal．Aug．23，2005）．
Friends of the Earth，Inc．v．Gaston Copper Recycling Corp．，204 F．3d 149 at 162．（4（th上标）Cir．2000）．
Lujan v．Defenders of Wildlife，．504 u．s．555，at 560（1992）．
Warth v．Seldin，422 u．s．490，508（1975）．A plaintiffmust show that“the practical consequence”of a favorable Idecision would result in“a significant increase in the likelihood that the plaintiff would obtain relief that direcfly redresses the injury suffered．”Utah v．Evans，．536 u．S．452，464（2002）．
Interfaith Cmty．Org．v．Honeywell Int''l，Inc．，399 F．3d 248，257（3d Cir．2005）．
See Laidlaw，528 U．S．at 185—86．Justice Scalia found the Court’s treatment of redressability to be just as “cavalier”as its treatment of injury—in—fact．Id．at 202（Scalia，J．，dissenting）．
|
