I have concerns with the economics behind rewilding, and green upside monetising. A lot of carbon credits monetize things which were going to happen anyway, and don't reflect real re-wilding or carbon sink activity. Like, if you had been clearing land for decades, and left it alone, you get to claim amazing carbon sink benefits from the wood which grows, even on the land you never intended trying to make productive. Somehow, that feels wrong.
Beavers are also cost avoidance on other people than the land holder. Overground water flows generally don't stop at the farm boundary. Somebody 100km away doesn't get flooded, and its a benefit, but to them, or their insurer, or their town council, or .. who exactly isn't clear. "I didn't have to remediate all this flood damage" has undefined, but treated as uncountable/low dollar value where 'I did spend $200m remediating' has very clear value. (I want to say negative but there's bad economics coming back in. A giant flood potlach is jobs, and spend, and boosts the rural economy. Albiet at the expense of somewhere else not getting that spend. Money is wierd. we need more wars! they're good for the economy.. kinda)