Accordingly, environmentalism views property rights as anachronistic privileges that cannot be maintained in the face of the common imperative of protecting an imperiled planet. Environmentalism eliminates such rights as a constitutional category. The logic of universal interconnectedness also shapes environmentalism's view of who should get access to the courts. Traditionally, a plaintiff had to show some tangible harm to himself to be entitled to a judicial ruling on the merits of his case. This standing requirement serves to prevent mere bystanders or ideologues from interfering with private transactions or public policies in which they have no actual stake.
Environmentalism rejects harm-based standing rules.
In a world of omnipresent externalities where there are no unaffected bystanders, what you do with your property is not your business alone but mine also. The emasculation of property rights and the elimination of harm-based standing are opposite sides of the same coin, and both converge on a boundless definition of government power. Judicial Review . If everything is connected to everything else, the courts no longer have a reference point for sorting common-law rights and wrongs from the infinite complexity of life. Only the legislature can decide which harms are worth bearing and which are not.