€5 a night: The damage missing from the bill?

Imagine climate change as a cost. Currently, this cost is about $200 per ton of CO2. As we know, the cost is not internalised - as society, we subsidise the polluters; and the more you pollute, the more you free ride on society. Fair?

What is the alternative? Obviously, an internalisation of the social cost of carbon. Ideally at the source - wherever fossil fuels are used, the social cost of carbon is added to the price. Very fair, very simple.

Now, if a hotel has a high fuel bill, it will have to pass on a lot of that cost to the customer. If that's 5 Euro, electrification suddenly becomes attractive, as does energy efficiency. The low-carbon society becomes more attractive, the world a fairer place.

Yes, climate damage has a cost and someone is paying for it — just not the ones causing it. But as an industry, we need to be honest about what we are and what we do well: we care about guests. We make people feel welcome. Adding a line item to the bill that guests do not fully understand, or that creates a sense of guilt, is not aligned with what hospitality stands for.

That does not mean we should avoid financial accountability. It means we should design it properly.

Leaving a sustainability charge with individual hotel operators to spend at their discretion is not the answer. It creates inconsistency, lacks transparency, and raises an uncomfortable question: should a guest at a verified net zero hotel — one that has already invested heavily in decarbonisation — pay the same as a guest at a hotel that has done nothing? That is neither fair nor credible.

A better model already exists: tourism taxation. Government-owned, transparently managed, and directed toward system-level change — infrastructure, energy transition, climate adaptation — rather than fragmented individual initiatives. It creates a level playing field and avoids greenwashing risk.

And not limited to carbon. Social sustainability deserves equal attention.

Emissions costs should be visible and become payable over time, but accountability must begin before guests check in.

By the time someone books a room, decisions about a hotel’s energy systems and resource consumption have been made. A nightly charge may help fund change, but shouldn’t allow the industry to transfer responsibility entirely to guests.

Voluntary programmes raise awareness. We now need a framework that links financial responsibility to measured emissions, incentivizing reductions.

Guests are familiar with destination taxes and other charges, but that doesn’t mean they’ll trust a carbon levy. We need to explain how it’s calculated and what it funds.

Credible measurement must come before payment. I support a common methodology, adapted to each destination, linking charges to measured emissions so hotels that improve pay less. A flat fee would collect money without the same incentive to invest.

Owners must invest in building performance; operators must improve efficiency. Guests may ultimately carry part of the cost through a transparent charge disclosed at booking, with clear reporting on calculation, use and results. This cannot replace owners’ and operators’ responsibilities.

Solutions will differ across regions, but the principles should remain consistent: credible measurement, shared responsibility and demonstrable results. Success means lower emissions and more resilient destinations.

Prices need to be inclusive of all the costs incurred to deliver a service, rather than becoming externalities paid by society. Having said that, accommodation is often already subject to destination taxes, typically not earmarked for sustainability-related projects, let alone decarbonisation projects. Hence politically it would be difficult to introduce a new tax, and also to redirect some of the funding from the current taxes (usually under €5 a night) towards carbon-related projects.

Price it on the bill. Spend it behind the scenes.

Is it time? Carbon is not free. It is unevenly priced. A German hotel’s gas boiler pays €55–65 per tonne in 2026, against UBA’s €350 damage estimate. In New York, Local Law 97 fines large buildings $268 for every tonne over their limit. In Singapore, the S$45 carbon tax reaches hotels through the power bill. Globally, the World Bank finds only 29% of emissions priced, averaging about $21 a tonne.

What form, and who pays? Show it on the folio, like a city tax: “Climate cost of your stay: €4.90.” Keep it outside the revenue-management rate, or the algorithm will discount it away. Guests see it. Owners still carry most of it, because the meter is theirs. A guest cannot insulate a roof.

Where should the money go? Into the building and the people who run it. Train the chief engineer on heat-pump controls. Take the laundry off gas. Cool the room where staff work through August.

My HR test: if the levy leaves the property, it is a tax. If it changes how the night shift runs the plant room, it is climate policy.

Is it time? Yes. I am writing from an all-inclusive resort near COP31 in Antalya, where single-use plastic is everywhere: cups at every bar, takeaway cups by the pool, and bottles even on restaurant tables. Türkiye has mandated GSTC certification for every hotel by 2030, the most ambitious programme worldwide [1], yet these practices persist. Certification sets the standard. Only mandatory requirements and training within properties and ownership groups turn it into daily practice.

Who pays? Guests should pay for what they consume. Catalonia has received over 16 million international tourists this year, twice its population [2]. Mallorca, with under one million residents, welcomed 10.14 million by August [3]. A per-night levy, collected like a tourist tax and linked to each hotel’s performance, is fair.

Businesses must comply now with low-cost measures: no single-use plastics, compulsory food waste weighing and composting, demand-led buffets, energy controls, and training for teams and owners.

Where should the money go? It should be ring-fenced and invested locally, in public infrastructure, training, a retrofit fund for small hotels and food waste systems, with transparent annual reporting.

The delegates will leave Antalya. These practices will not unless implemented

Sources [1] GSTC – https://www.gstc.org/?p=1434856 [2] Catalan News – https://www.catalannews.com/business/item/catalonia-sets-september-record-with-21-million-international-tourists [3] Mallorca.com https://www.mallorca.com/en/magazin/news/german-tourist-visits-mallorca

The climate bill already exists. The question is how we turn that cost into faster action and stronger destinations.

Emissions should be visible and reflected in business decisions. Any carbon pricing mechanism must be fair, predictable and grounded in credible measurement, recognising existing charges and rewarding reductions.

Many Alliance members are already investing in this transition. Policy should accelerate that progress and help smaller businesses participate. A uniform €5 charge risks treating different footprints alike.

Responsibility should reflect the influence owners, operators and suppliers have over emissions. Guests deserve transparent prices and confidence that contributions deliver results.

The Alliance’s measurement work helps establish the evidence needed. Revenues should fund clean energy, efficient buildings, workforce skills and resilience in vulnerable communities, with local participation and independently reported outcomes.

For me, Net Positive Hospitality means ensuring every contribution leaves people and places stronger, with progress everyone can see and trust.

Yes, I think emissions should be visible and come with a cost. What matters is what those extra €5 actually change.

I would support a compulsory charge based on verified emissions, taking existing carbon charges into account. Owners and operators should bear costs linked to the emissions they control, with suppliers financially accountable for theirs. Guests can contribute through clearly explained room prices, but the full cost should not simply be passed on to them. Governments need to set common rules and ensure independent checks.

The money should be set aside to cut emissions and support regenerative practices, with local communities helping decide how it is spent. Examples include clean energy, ecosystem restoration, regenerative farming among hotel suppliers, and training and fair pay for residents doing restoration work. Spending and results should be public, with some funding reaching vulnerable communities elsewhere.

Offsetting reminds us that credit quality matters: paying does not guarantee real, lasting climate benefits. Insetting brings action closer to the hotel’s value chain, but still needs reliable measurement, no double counting and long-term monitoring. Above all, we should avoid and reduce emissions from the start. Paying cannot become permission to carry on as usual.

If prices provide information that shapes consumer decisions, then the environmental cost of CO₂ emissions should be reflected in the price of travel. Making this cost visible could encourage more responsible choices and ensure that part of the societal cost of emissions is internalised.

However, the key question is whether higher prices actually change behaviour, and whose behaviour they change. An additional €5 may be insignificant for a wealthy traveller but meaningful for someone with limited disposable income. Carbon pricing could therefore unintentionally reinforce social inequalities, making travel increasingly accessible to those who can simply afford to pay more.

This also raises a broader question: is our current level of mobility sustainable at all? Travel that was exceptional for previous generations has become increasingly normalised. Yet reducing travel also carries significant economic consequences for hospitality, tourism, aviation and the millions of livelihoods connected to them.

The challenge, therefore, is not simply to price carbon, but to balance environmental responsibility, economic viability and equitable access to travel.

There is no convincing reason why the climate impact of hospitality operations should remain invisible. There is also no doubt that the calculations used to decide the amount of a “climate damage contribution” must be based on credible, scientifically backed data, specific to the property. A logical approach would be that this contribution is divided, via a shared responsibility approach. This would see hotels taking responsibility for emissions they can influence through investment, operational efficiency, renewable energy sources and responsible procurement decisions. Suppliers should of course also carry their fair share. Guests must be able to see and feel that the property is not just loading the responsibility onto their hotel bill. This requires the clear disclosure of the calculations of emissions associated with their stay. Where the collected funds are to be directed must also be disclosed and should prioritise localised action aimed at improving the quality of life in the destination as well as focusing on climate adaptation and nature restoration in the immediate geographical area.  

Thank you Willy for sharing these questions again with the panel. Hereby my two Penny's worth:

1. Yes, absolutely: it is time to make climate costs, and biodiversity loss costs visible and payable. I wish to add, that all costs that contribute to social and environmental sustainability should be made visible and payable. We should have started a while ago, yet it is never too late, and - considering where we stand - it makes sense to start with climate and biodiveristy.

2. Ultimately these costs should be paid by the people enjoying the service, the guests. Hospitality managers may wish to absorb part of these costs, but I guess in the end they will have to pass these on to their guests. Interestingly, if we let businesses and their guests pay for their environmental and social damage, this will create a competitive advantage for sustainable businesses. A double win.

3. This questions will need a more articulate answer, because which organisation could best collect the money and where it should go will largely vary per region and situation. A short cut: considering the attack to institutes like the IPCC, part of the collected money should go to fund their work.

No, I would not impose an additional charge on guests simply because they are attending a climate conference. Their reason for travelling should not determine how they are treated. Hospitality requires fairness, and the same principles should apply to every guest.

If a hotel decides to introduce an environmental charge, it should apply consistently under a clear and transparent policy. Guests should understand the charge before booking, including how it is calculated and what it supports. Owners and operators must also contribute through investment and responsible management, without transferring their entire responsibility to customers.

The money should return to residents and biodiversity through practical community projects. These could include restoring habitats, supporting community gardens, improving water management and creating shared green spaces. Local people should help decide priorities and participate in delivering the projects.

I would prioritise initiatives that can demonstrate results, grow over time and be replicated elsewhere. Funding should be ringfenced, with public reporting on expenditure, community benefits and ecological outcomes. The purpose should be to strengthen the place that makes hospitality possible. Any charge should therefore create a visible, lasting benefit for the communities and natural environments on which both the hotel and its guests depend.

In concept, this is a great idea user (visitor pays) for the damage caused. In such an instance if the fund is hypothecated or ringfenced for tourism and hospitality transition support, this seems a logical approach - utilising funds raised to do better. As such, you would have to question if a business is measuring impact, does it get to pay based on an annual average of "damage" (footprint). This in itself creates a reason for measurement and encourages action.

The challenge, making the narrative resonate with visitors. Tonnes emitted and damage don't necessarily align with a vacation or make sense to people outside of sustainability - so how do we sell a story that connects and stimulates responsible behaviour not just through this visit, but when they go back home too? Connecting to livelihoods, local stories, climate transition and positively contributing to biodiversity and priority community outcomes may offer a softer solution that enables such a fee to become a little more palatable. No one stops visiting for a bed tax, or a resort fee, so why should or would they for a transition payment? And if there is push back, are they the type of visitors we want?

Q1: Yes. The principle matters. Hotels already pay for wastewater, waste collection but carbon escapes because it’s invisible, and what’s invisible very rarely gets managed. The strongest objection is that it can encourage doing the same: a hotel that pays and can keep its gas boilers running doesn’t change.

Q2: I would suggest a per-night carbon charge based on metered energy use, printed as its own line on the invoice - probably the most workable option. A clear line matters because it lets guests compare properties and stops hotels hiding the cost in a vague “green fee.” The operator should carry most of it, since it controls the heating, AC, lighting etc. Some costs can pass to guests, who choose the destination, the star rating and the length of stay. Small independent hotels need a conscious approach-a flat charge can weigh heavily.

Q3: Inside the sector, it could fund heat pumps, insulation, renewable power, with grants or affordable loans for independent hotels. Outside it, it could fund programs in places hit hardest by heat, water shortages and coastal flooding. Linking revenue to tangible outcomes makes the charge feel less like a tax. Without clear reinvestment, it risks becoming just another fee.

A €5 carbon line will not change how luxury guests travel. Its real value lies elsewhere: in obliging hotels to prove their numbers. Héctor De Castro argues for a verified carbon line, priced at the social cost of carbon and calculated from each property’s own metered data, with a deliberately high default for hotels that cannot demonstrate theirs. The guest pays the line; the owner controls its size. Proceeds should follow a regenerative order (reduce, restore, then compensate) and be reported on outcomes, not intentions. The bill can record what a stay takes. The harder question for luxury is what it leaves behind.

Responsibility for reducing and accounting for environmental damage should primarily lie with hospitality businesses, not individual guests. Environmental costs need to be embedded in business models and reflected in pricing, just like labour, energy and maintenance. But paying for emissions must never become a licence to continue polluting. The priority should be to prevent and reduce harm.

Consumers have a role to play by choosing responsible hotels, but we cannot place the burden of change on them. Guests choose accommodation for many reasons, including price, location and convenience. Nor can we expect them to distinguish meaningful action from convincing sustainability claims. Responsible hospitality should not depend on guests paying a premium or opting into greener choices.

This calls for clear standards and a level playing field, so businesses that invest in responsible operations are not disadvantaged. Revenues from carbon pricing should help finance emissions reductions, sustainable practices and support for affected communities.

Ultimately, hospitality today means more than caring for the guest in front of us. It means caring for the people, communities and natural systems on which our industry depends. Protecting and regenerating this social and natural capital is not an optional initiative; it is fundamental to being hospitable.

Emission costs may be missing from the hotel bill, but asset climate adaptation and mitigation plans should balance upfront investment against expected EBITDA as buildings adopt efficiency measures and clean energy. The question we could ask is who may be who pays for adaptation and mitigation, and whether that cost should be passed on to the guest at all. And this five euros might only account for operating emissions. What happens when we add embodied emissions on top?

When we work with assets globally, we can also ask ourselves, are emissions really the main priority? Other issues, such as large-scale biodiversity loss, may be causing even more damage, and we are not even measuring it. Could we add a context-based damage cost to the bill? If hotels run water-intensive assets in water-scarce locations, this is the data layer information that hotel need and account for the financial and non-financial risks tied to the real context-based impact on local ecosystems and communities.

Paying down the climate debt.

While negotiators in Antalya debate decarbonisation, EU governments agreed to postpone methane monitoring rules for fossil fuel imports by a year, while the Commission withdrew the Green Claims Directive altogether [1,2].

Hotels do not need a COP decision to act. They can price each night’s energy emissions at the UBA rate of €350 per tonne and build it into the room rate as an internal carbon fee.

Where should the money go? First, into the property since buildings use around 40% of the EU’s energy, 85% of them were built before 2000, and three quarters perform poorly [3]. Second, into a methane source hotels largely control: food waste, which featured on COP31’s opening day [4] and for which a practical manual exists [5]. Third, into the destination’s resilience to heat, drought and coastal loss, the very damage the €5 describes. Five euros a night will not settle the debt owed to destinations losing most to a crisis they did least to cause. But it is the first honest entry on the bill.

Sources:

[1] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/11/06/methane-regulation-council-agrees-to-postpone-monitoring-rules-for-one-year/

[2] https://www.esgtoday.com/eu-commission-scraps-green-claims-directive/

[3] https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-performance-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive_en

[4] https://cop.sifiratikvakfi.org/en/cop31-programme/

[5] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicolas-dubrocard-8b581633_food-waste-manual-11-myths-39-hands-on-activity-7523682122252087296-_zma

Whether externalities are assigned to the guest or the business is largely irrelevant in economic terms, even though customer perceptions will differ. If businesses must pay, the result will be higher prices, which is equal to assigning these costs to guests in the manner Soneva has done with its 2% carbon emission fee added automatically to room rates (Shivdasani & Oines, 2023). In both cases, demand is likely affected. Telling the narrative of externalities in a way that triggers willingness to pay is crucial, along with using the resulting funds in a trustworthy manner. A Dutch foundation called True Price has developed a methodology for calculating the true cost of externalities in agricultural production, with the goal of businesses charging consumers the resulting price and using the funds to mitigate externalities. Tourism should develop its own “True Rate” methodology for this purpose. To me, the fundamental question is why customers accept - to a certain degree - costs of internal responsibility (e.g., fair wages, sustainable practices by a hotel) but are willing to ignore externalities as if they did not exist, while the results are evident, for example, in the breaching of planetary boundaries. How can we change this mindset?

Yes, activities that contribute to climate change must become more expensive. Yes, €5 shouldn’t be too much for us—it’s actually far too little.

And yet this discussion misses the real heart of the matter. What we need to decide is whether we will adhere to scientific findings and base our actions on them. If we did, we wouldn’t be talking about €5 for climate protection, but rather about how to preserve the foundations of our lives, our economy, and our society.

And that would take us away from the topic of climate change altogether and into the realm of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Neither tourism nor any other economic sector or stakeholder can survive without the services provided by nature. And by the way: The protection and restoration of nature are considered the best measures for climate protection anyway, because they are the most cost-effective and efficient.

We must give this set of issues our top priority and devote far greater attention to it, because the biosphere won’t wait for us to come to our senses.

Can We Make Carbon Feel Like Money?

My concern is our carbon illiteracy. Show me €14, €140 or €1,400 and I immediately have a sense of value. Show me “14 kg CO₂e per night” and I don’t. Carbon simply does not yet speak a language most of us intuitively understand.

A price tag could help, but only if we first make the carbon number meaningful. Fourteen kilos is roughly a day of an average European’s emissions, or around 90 km in a petrol car. More importantly, it covers only the energy used by an upper-upscale room. Include food, laundry and services, and a night may actually represent 40–60 kg CO₂e.

So yes, translate carbon into money. But don’t put a price on 14 kg and pretend we have priced the stay. We have priced the boiler.

Count the full footprint, make it visible at checkout and then attach a price. Twenty upscale nights can approach a tonne of CO₂e (similar as 'the average West-European" spends in 2 months). That is when the number begins to speak. And the logical next step is uncomfortable but unavoidable: include the carbon cost of getting to the hotel.

Smart Leadership

Your question triggers thoughts on the collective responsibility for CO2 emissions in business and leisure travel. In these systemic issues, there is always the question of who steps in first, and who joins in.

We can no longer beat around the bush: CO2 emissions can now be quantified for every step in the travel process.

Innovation is always a matter of bold leadership and taking ownership. The industry's price design should absolutely reflect the true cost of all of their products and services.

The market will trust the industry more if the booking platforms step up and demonstrate intelligent leadership with regard to this global challenge. They are world leaders in data and quantification of the travel experience. Wouldn't it be great if they started to show quantified CO2 emissions, along with the True Price and Ecological Compensation, as a feature in their booking filters? Take partners and travellers seriously. Show them the measurable impact of their travel decisions--so that they in turn can take responsibility, pay true prices, and balance their impact on climate.

Climate data cannot be ignored. Tell the truth about CO2 emissions. Let’s use our business genius to come up with smart and engaging counterbalances.

I agree with the idea that the issue of CO₂ emissions must be taken more seriously in the hospitality industry. At the same time, for society to accept this, more thorough preparation is needed. I asked my students if they would be willing to pay 5 euros per night to offset the CO₂ emissions generated during their hotel stay, and the answer was a clear “no.” They aren’t ready for this yet, but I believe they could be if this “tax” is properly phased in and the information is clearly itemized on the bill. The 5 euros may seem too sudden for those who have never had to account for such an additional cost at a hotel. But like any innovation, this one needs time to be “digested”. As a first step, I would consider a symbolic 1% of the room rate appropriate, which we could increase in a year or two. This would already generate several billion euros in annual revenue. The money should be used to support innovations focused on sustainability and new technologies so that they can become widespread in the hospitality industry.

The bill is coming due, and the costs we haven’t accounted for are substantial. Economic externalities were never free – just out of sight and out of mind.

It is easy to say “we should factor carbon costs into the price of lodging.” But the idea demands a profound change in our mental models of production and consumption.

And as the system currently operates, even if such a fee were introduced, the money would not flow directly from carbon consumers to the costs of carbon use. Governments juggling many budget priorities are unlikely to dedicate new revenues solely to climate.

Even if – with some magical thinking – the money went straight to GHG mitigation and adaptation, the bills from past carbon use would still be due.

Is it a good idea? Perhaps – but it isn’t “the” answer. We need to stop looking for silver bullets and commit to the hard work of solving this wicked problem. (Shout out to all those folks are already doing the hard work to address the climate crisis!)

The bill is coming due for our use of “cheap” carbon-producing energy. How we pay it has no simple answer – but it will be the challenge of our lifetime.

We do have examples to draw ideas from: carbon taxes and emissions trading systems already operate in many countries, including across the EU; airlines offer opportunities to contribute to carbon reduction projects; and destinations such as Bhutan, New Zealand, and the Galápagos collect visitor fees that support destination management.

Hospitality has an enormous footprint, so it should collect money from visitors, while also maintaining company commitment to SDG 13 Climate Action.  Accommodations should levy a fee, but we should learn from the debates surrounding hotel bed taxes, where revenues are legally bound to only certain applications (that normally exclude environmental uses).

But who will collect the money, control it, and produce measurable results? Rather than another poorly explained guest surcharge, I favor transparent, independently administered destination funds, supported by hotels and other tourism businesses, with community representation and public accountability. It will require cooperation across multiple industry and municipality structures (where tourism is often regulated) to regional and governmental decarbonization efforts and offices. Revenues should be combined with other green fee efforts and be used for renewable energy transitions, energy efficiency, ecosystem restoration, urban green space, and credible carbon removal and sinking projects.