A better model already exist

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 if we go down this road, the fund should not be limited to carbon. Social sustainability — decent work, community development, inclusion — deserves equal attention. The climate crisis and the social crisis are not separate issues.

To answer the three questions directly:

1. Is it time to make the cost of emissions visible? Yes — but visible does not have to mean a line on the guest bill. It means systemic accountability.

2. In what form, and who carries the cost? A government-managed sustainability contribution, similar to tourism taxation, applied at destination or national level. The cost is shared across the value chain, not passed to the guest as guilt.

3. Where should the money go? Toward system change — energy transition, climate adaptation, community resilience, social sustainability — governed transparently and independently. Not left to individual operators. However, hotel operators should be able to apply for grants and subsidies towards their own transition.

The industry needs to move, and financial mechanisms are part of that. But the mechanism matters as much as the ambition.