Hacker News Reader

I'm curious how they balanced the rights of potential future humans vs. the rights of currently existing humans whose lives would be improved by the coal potentially mined here. I'm assuming the coal miner's side tried this sort of argument?

View on HN

I would suggest this is a false dichotomy and so am not sure there would be much to balance in this regard (even if it were up for consideration)

They don't, the judgement only considers harms to human rights from the project going ahead, it ignores any downside from cancelling it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com