[PEN-L:9755] re: Environmental Economics

[Ellen Dannin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

I wanted to add some thoughts on the legal issues involved to this
discussion on externalities and how they are or are not taken into
consideration.

In order to bring a case, one must have "standing." Standing is a
constitutional requirement, and it is also a difficult status to define.
One has standing as a plaintiff if one has suffered an injury. The problem
is that often that injury must be specific to the plaintiff. As a
result, an injury that is widely suffered may mean that no one has
standing. One famous Supreme Court decision stated: It is not enough to
enjoy seeing the birds fly.

Furthermore, one must be a person (or a corporation or association, which
are treated as persons). Thus, trees, animals, and the earth itself, no
matter how injured, do not have standing.

One of my law school professors talked about this in terms of whether the
law can see an injury. The way the law sees injury and the way we may
think of harm and injury are not the same things. If the law sees no
injury, then there is no legally cognizable claim. The constitution
requires that there be a case or controversy as opposed to the desire for
a decision as to a theoretical issue. If the law doesn't "see" the injury,
it is merely theoretical, and the plaintiff is out of court.

ellen


Ellen J. Dannin
California Western School of Law
225 Cedar Street
San Diego, CA  92101
Phone:  619-525-1449
Fax:    619-696-9999