Land use restrictions are the preferred policy tool to halt the dramatic decline in global biodiversity, but their economic costs are unknown. We estimate an average discount of 45% in the value of protected land in the U.S. This discount is driven by restrictions to development. It is larger in locations where developable land is more scarce and where political regimes are more committed to conservation. We quantify the costs of existing biodiversity protections at $820 billion or 3% of aggregate U.S. land value. These costs should be weighed against the benefits of biodiversity to determine optimal conservation policy.

Biodiversity conservation incurs substantial economic costs. We investigate how financial markets price the risks such costs induce, exploiting the ``Green Shield Action,” a major regulatory initiative launched in China in 2017 to enforce biodiversity preservation rules in national nature reserves. While improving biodiversity, the initiative led to significant increases in bond yields for municipalities with these reserves, effectively increasing the cost of public capital. The effects are driven by increases in local governments' fiscal risk due to expected increases in transition costs resulting from eradicating illegal economic activities within reserves and additional public spending on biodiversity. Investors show little non-financial consideration towards endeavors counteracting biodiversity loss.

Carbon offset projects frequently claim biodiversity "co-benefits", yet empirical evidence supporting these claims remains scarce. This study provides the first comprehensive empirical investigation of how voluntary carbon offset projects may impact biodiversity. We compile a novel dataset combining hand-collected data on 29,974 voluntary carbon offset projects with finely-resolved data on local ecosystems from satellite measures. Results indicate carbon offset projects are associated with a 3.7% increase in human impact on local ecosystems, as measured by the Human Impact Index (HII). To investigate whether certain types of projects yield biodiversity co-benefits, we analyze heterogeneity across four dimensions: (a) projects located in areas with low initial HII, (b) projects subject to specific biodiversity requirements, (c) projects that disclose biodiversity benefits, and (d) projects located in protected areas. Despite this heterogeneity analysis, we find no evidence of significant biodiversity co-benefits across these dimensions. These findings raise concerns about the additionality and effectiveness of biodiversity claims, suggesting a disconnect between stated goals and actual ecological outcomes. The results highlight potential "biodiversitywashing" in voluntary carbon markets and underscore the need for more rigorous standards to align carbon finance mechanisms with biodiversity conservation objectives.