美国联邦最高院在马赛诸塞州诉EPA案中对原告资格在“事实上的损害、可追溯性和可救济性”方面的革新的解释,拓宽了温室气体排放诉讼的原告资格。但其后的AEP案、Comer案和Kivalina案又将温室气体排放诉讼的原告资格进行收紧。从当前的判例来看,美国温室气体减排制度未来仍将主要是立法机关和行政机关的范畴,司法审查将以减排的制定法为依据,主要审查EPA是否履行其职责,或排放企业是否遵守减排立法的要求。 The Supreme Court of the United States in the state of Massachusetts v. EPA case clarified the plaintiff’s qualification as plaintiff in a greenhouse-gas lawsuit over the “detrimental, traceable, and remediable” plaintiff’s claim. However, subsequent AEP cases, Comer cases and Kivalina cases in turn tightened the qualification of plaintiffs in greenhouse gas emission litigation. Judging from the current jurisprudence, the future of the U.S. greenhouse gas emission reduction system will remain largely the scope of the legislature and the executive. The judicial review will be based on the law of emission reduction, which mainly reviews whether the EPA fulfills its duty or whether the enterprise emits Abide by the emission reduction legislation requirements.