“It is equally easy to imagine how certain actions taken by the present generation can negatively effect these interests, and in doing so violate the rights of future generations.”

Does it follow that acting in a way which negatively effects someone’s interests must be considered a violation of their rights?
We can think of many examples where our actions negatively effect the interests of others, yet we do not view such actions as being necessarily immoral.
[For example: Mr. Brown and Mr. Black both apply for the same job.]
Perhaps you might offer an example?

“This objection to the notion of intergenerational responsibility can be overcome if we think in terms of probability……this does not mean that we cannot make a decent estimate, or err on the side of caution and pursue a path of development that strives to maintain the natural environment to the greatest possible extent. After all, not knowing how to perform our responsibilities does not absolve us from them; we ought to at least attempt to perform them.”
- How exactly does one assess, in “terms of probability”, that the “cautious”, approach with a view to maintaining the natural environment, is the most likely to succeed?
Attempting to do something without sufficient knowledge might be more damaging to future generations depending on the nature of the attempt. If the most cautious approach had been advocated prior to the industrial revolution for example, we might have found ourselves in a disadvantaged world. Or perhaps not. The very fact that such disagreement could exist alludes to a further problem – how likely is it that future generations will have a uniform or (adequately uniform) conception of the ideal environment?

Overall, I’m having most difficulty in wrapping my head around a conception of morality which places obligations on humans towards people who not only do not exist now, but who may never exist.