The modern doctrine of environmental standing prevents many worthy plaintiffs from presenting their cases in court. Especially in the context of climate change, this restrictive doctrine has profound implications. But the modern doctrine is an aberration; this Article shows that for most of American history there were no comparably severe standing requirements, that the Supreme Court Justices of the mid-20th century who transformed the doctrine did so inadvertently, and that Justices’ invocation of “tradition” in justifying the modern doctrine is simply incorrect. The Article pays special attention to the seminal standing case of Sierra Club v. Morton. Though remembered now for Justice Douglas’ bold dissent arguing that trees should have standing, the truly radical dissent belonged to Justice Blackmun. Drawing on two forgotten yet crucial insights from his dissent, this Article then charts a path forward, and argues for the passage of statelevel environmental statutes that grant standing even in the absence of an injury. It concludes by proposing a model law.