I get the impression you're not arguing that biodiversity preservation is bad or stupid, just economically not viable (i.e. there is not enough resource availab

I get the impression you're not arguing that biodiversity preservation is bad or stupid, just economically not viable (i.e. there is not enough resource available to maintain this goal). One (arguably too) simple option is just to have governments tax offending businesses and pool these taxes into programs that support biodiversity. This is the more pro government-leaning viewpoint. The libertarian viewpoint is to have a bright, Elon Musk-like businessman or company that innovates into creating a cheaper and more sustainable solution to the business that's causing biodiversity loss, pressuring incumbent business to change. Realistically, shouting "biodiversity" doesn't say all too much. What biodiversity? Deforestation is a different problem to the disappearance of the bee population (in terms of economic pressures on these things), and each needs to be tackled in a thoroughly researched, carefully considered manner. There probably isn't a single correct solution to this problem, and solving it will require a collection of viable solutions that incentivise economically, socially and morally.