They take the "business" tack because you can more easily put a value to it, they can show loss. Future pain and suffering and broad "human rights" arguments are more nebulous to a court of law ruling on a specific complaint. And courts only rule on the specifics of a case. "How is this action hurting you ATM or in the near future?" And prove it, with numbers and stuff.

Does that make sense? Courts are not interested in feelings or possible futures. The plaintiffs made a solid argument with, "This is hurting our business now, and by denying us planning, clearly hurts us in the short-term." And no one is going to argue that farming isn't a business with a short-term planning needs.

Pretty funny that farmers, insurance companies and the military recognize climate change as an immediate and future issue. Must be woke. MAGA!