Mike Hopkin reports from the joint meeting of the Ecological Society of America and the Society for Ecological Restoration in San Jose, California.

We all know that saving carbon is good. But some ecologists think that we might be going about it in a rather misguided way. Restoring natural ecosystems, they argue, is vital as part of our efforts to cut the amount of greenhouse gas in our skies, and is greener than other schemes such as single-culture forestry or subsidized biofuel crops.

The Society for Ecological Restoration claims that restoring ecosystems is not just a good thing for the ecosystems themselves – it will also mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as forests and wetlands are re-established and begin to store carbon as they grow and replenish themselves.

In the current political climate, we’re used to being told that we have to take action against greenhouse emissions, and that technologies such as biofuels offer a fast track to making progress in this regard. But in politicians’ (well, some politicians’) eagerness to champion these ideas, they may be doing good in the short term, but harm in the long run, say the ecologists. “That’s the same silver-bullet approach that got us into this position in the first place,” says Steve Windhager of the University of Texas at Austin.

Of course, this is exactly the message one would expect to hear from an organization that promotes the restoration of ecosystems. Many outfits, from political parties to high street banks, have have taken pains to inform us all of their relevance and usefulness in the fight against global warming. And there is no doubt that short-term solutions such as forestry and biofuels are needed to help deliver the huge carbon cuts that climate forecasters tell us we need to make over the coming half-century.

In fact, the issue of timescale is a vexing one for advocates of ecological restoration who promote a holistic approach to tackling climate change. The problem is that restoring a forest to its pristine state usually takes centuries, and we need a solution much faster than that.

But the urgency of the problem can lead to problems in itself, says the society’s chair, Keith Bowers. He points out that the extensive use of fertilizer to feed crops, including biofuels, could ultimately harm river ecosystems and even potentially contribute to the demise of marine ecosystems such as the Gulf of Mexico.

It all leaves the ecological restorationists in a bind. While most people would agree that natural is generally best when approaching almost any environmental challenge, the sheer scale of the climate-change threat means that hard-headed people want solutions now. And the problem is compounded by the fact that ecological restoration doesn’t generate as much hard cash as biofuel farming or running a carbon-offsetting agency that earns money by planting forests. Natural might be best in many people’s view, but even in the green world of the fight against climate change, money talks and deadlines matter. And ecologists might not have enough time or money to persuade people to restore wetlands instead of buying carbon offsets or biofuel cars.