Abstract
Climate change is one of the thorniest political, legal, and economic issues of our time. Therefore, a new legal approach to the issue is required. This Note proposes a streamlined approach for climate change standing, one that assumes injury in fact and causation for a class of discernible climate change harms. A streamlined approach will enable litigants harmed by climate change to seek redress in court, providing an outlet for redress where there has previously been none. Part II of this Note discusses the constitutional doctrine of standing. It begins with a summary of Article III and the logic behind the case or controversy requirement, it then goes on to analyze each element of standing, (1) injury in fact, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. Part III analyzes the doctrine of standing in environmental cases, discussing notable cases such as Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and Juliana v. United States. Part IV compares the American approach to judicial standing to other countries with more liberalized standing requirements, such as the Philippines. Part V argues for a new, streamlined approach for climate change standing. This Note concludes with the hypothesis that establishing standing using the three-part test is largely an academic exercise, one with illogical constraints that can be overcome with simple fixes (such as the purchase of a plane ticket) and that a new, streamlined approach for climate change standing, should be adopted. A new, streamlined approach to standing, which assumes injury in fact and causation for a specific class of climate change injuries, will enable the American judicial system to effectively redress climate change
Recommended Citation
Ian R. Curry, Establishing Climate Change Standing: A New Approach, 36 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 297 (2019)DOI: https://doi.org/10.58948/0738-6206.1830
Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol36/iss2/4