I've been thinking about all that rewilding discussion yesterday, and there seems to be a meaningful parallel with the Just Transition discussion that has taken place in climate circles – which particularly concerns coal miners.

During the 2016 presidential debate, Hillary Clinton said that she was "going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."

She meant it well. She was promising an alternative. But it was a total disaster for her and for the cause. https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/03/gaffe-track-hillarys-employment-plan-for-coal-miners/473592/

It shows how much the approach, and the words used to describe that approach, matter.

It's true that rewilding isn't going to happen everywhere. But every farm could benefit from a wilder and more nature friendly approach. And @Rebirding1 makes clear that we need large areas, not patchworks, for the recovery of nature.

That means working with people who may currently be unwilling or suspicious. And that means talking to people in language that they will find acceptable, with solutions they will embrace.

It means not getting caught out like Hillary Clinton, announcing that jobs are going to vanish – even if there are other jobs on offer. It needs to sound attractive. It needs to be beyond devious misinterpretation by vested interests.

This is a conversation that has had a long time to develop in America and other places with tightly-bound coal communities. I wrote a long article on it four years ago. I feel like there's so much that conservationists could learn from this. https://www.carbonbrief.org/clean-energy-the-challenge-of-achieving-a-just-transition-for-workers