Thank you, Justin Pidot, for this interesting summary.

I agree with your reading of the majority opinion regarding standing, generally.  But I do not altogether follow how the petitioner's formal status affects things.

Sure, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a sovereign state, and I agree that acknowledging that it has standing is not a hard call.

But what about SMLowry in northern New England, who has pointed out how the culture of maple-sugaring will be extinct in fifteen or twenty years, on account of global warming?  Were she to sue the EPA, would she, as an individual, have standing?  What if she came with an ad hoc group of interested citizens of VT, NH and ME?  Is the number of citizens relevant, or not?

A similar example would be a coalition of home-owners on Cape Cod, which the climatologists and geologists do not expect to hold up against the rise of sea levels and the increasing intensity of storms.  Those home-owners are a discreet group, with an easily recognizable common interest.  They are already suffering, from not being able to get decent home insurance.  Would their ad hoc coalition have standing?  Or is their only hope to go through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

And how about extra-nationals?  Would the Province of Quebec, also famous for its sugar maples, have standing?  Would the Canadian provinces and territories with polar bears have standing?

In the latter cases -- and other, much more distant countries, such as the island countries of the Pacific, might be prospective petitioners too -- , one can foresee problems.  But I would hope that a decision against hearing all such suits should not restrict the standing of US citizens at least.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!