It appears that such noneconomic issues as global warming or loss of biodiversity have financial consequences too. Amazingly, different facets of life in nature and human activity are interrelated even though the link is not visible to all. Rich biodiversity provides conditions for sustainable living that is so popular these days. Besides, tourism is a great incentive to keep the nature as diverse as possible. Reservations, coral reefs, and other places with untouched nature attract more visitors with every year. But for the rest, biodiversity does not bring a huge income. That is why companies and individuals hardly think about protecting natural diversity when it is not a marketing strategy.
Whether we admit it or not, endangered biodiversity requires restoration, and here we face economic consequences. Environmental organizations are non-profits and they usually run on donations. Everyone who cares about the wildlife pays from their pockets to save species. Governments also supply funds to preserve the wildlife, as the US does according to the Endangered Species Act. The federal and state governments spent more than $1.7 billion for preserving the wildlife in 2012, which was more expensive than ever before. In the result, 158 species received more than $1million under the Act. A few species received $100 or less, and many more of the 2,000 species protected by the ESA were ignored.
Naturally, the more we ignore environmental damage, the bigger is the cost. Which is worse, the money spent on preservation cannot save the majority of endangered species. Therefore, we need any private conservation incentives or social benefits to encourage people to take care of the wildlife.