I read this article by Scott Alexander this morning.
I found that it elocuently describes a subtle difference in communicating social impact that had been in the back of my mind for a long time, but which I couldn’t articulate.
I’d suggest we try to use language more in the form “let’s help nature” and less “let’s restore justice to the natural world”. It feels better to me. It seems more aligned with the Rewilder vision and ethos.
What do you think? 
I think there are multiple ways to look at it. We need to help nature in order to help ourselves. That’s pure self-interest and survival. We’re not even talking altruism yet.
And yet in my work I use the framework of ecological Justice because it’s something that westernized humans can understand. That we are doing violence to other organisms by ignoring their well-being and their semiotic culture.
The biggest separation we have endured is that we are not nature ourselves.
When we get rid of the separation of self and other it becomes: we are nature defending herself.
We are nature, I like that!
I hated the idea of being cops bringing justice to the land. 
This brings to my mind complicated topics, like how we police the lands we buy for rewilding? Do we fence them? Do we pay for a guard with a gun who keeps poachers and polluters away? If we are all nature, who are all these people harming themselves by harming the land? Do they deserve punishment?
Once we buy a patch of abused land, it would be interesting to dig on its history. Who were the previous owners? Why did they cut all the trees? Not for judging them. Or yes, maybe just a little? 
It could bring some understanding to what is it that we are restoring.