Stop asking sustainable tourism to wait: reward action and penalise pollution

Travel & Tourism contributed an estimated US$11.6 trillion to global GDP in 2025, about 9.8% of the world economy, according to the World Travel & Tourism Council. That scale is why tourism is often described as the world’s third-largest “economy.” ^[1]

Tourism businesses are expected to measure their footprint and show evidence of progress. They are asked about their vehicles, energy use, suppliers and operating practices. Freight companies should face the same expectation. Goods transport is a major source of transport emissions, yet its operations and emissions are not always visible to the tourism businesses that rely on it.

The scale of one long-distance truck journey

A European test recorded fuel consumption of about 32.6 litres per 100 kilometres for a typical long-haul tractor-trailer. ^[2] Using an approximate fuel-combustion factor of 2.5 kg CO₂e per litre, that is about 0.82 kg CO₂e per kilometre. ^[3]

For illustration, a truck travelling around 5,400 kilometres on a Croatia–Portugal return journey would produce roughly 4.4 tonnes of CO₂e from burning fuel. This is an estimate, not a measurement of a specific truck. The actual figure depends on route, vehicle, load and driving conditions, and the calculation excludes emissions from producing and supplying the fuel.

That journey helps put a short tourist transfer in perspective: one long-haul truck trip can produce several tonnes of emissions, while a short local transfer is typically far smaller in total. Tourism vehicles still matter, especially when they travel long distances, carry few passengers or make repeated empty journeys. Each part of the travel chain should be measured and improved.

Freight’s transition remains far too small

The International Transport Forum estimated that freight produced 42% of transport CO₂ emissions in 2019. A UN Tourism and ITF study estimated tourism-related transport at 22% of transport CO₂ emissions in 2016. ^[4][5] The figures come from different years and studies, so they are not an exact side-by-side comparison. They do show that freight is a major part of the transport problem.

Electric trucks are entering the market, but uptake remains small beside the scale of freight. The International Energy Agency reports nearly 17,000 electric medium and heavy trucks sold in Europe in 2025, around 3% of truck sales. For heavy freight trucks specifically, electric models were only about 1.5% of new sales. ^[6]

There has been movement, but the transition is nowhere near the scale needed. Tourism businesses should not be left waiting for freight to decarbonise before their own sustainability work is recognised and supported.

Freight companies: show us the numbers

Tourism operators are regularly asked to provide evidence about their own sustainability claims. Freight providers should be asked for the same level of transparency by the businesses that hire them.

For each truck or shipment, useful information includes:

• vehicle and fuel type;
• fuel consumed;
• distance travelled;
• load carried;
• empty kilometres; and
• the method and emission factors used.

Carriers should report both total emissions and an intensity measure, such as emissions per tonne-kilometre or per shipment. A consistent method such as the GLEC Framework can help make freight emissions calculations clearer and more comparable. ^[7]

A truck operating for 5,000 hours in a year is useful context, but hours alone cannot tell us how much it polluted. We also need to know how much fuel it used, how far it travelled, what it carried and how the emissions were calculated. With that information, customers can check whether a carrier’s claims match its operations. Transparency does not automatically prove that a company is acting responsibly; it gives others the evidence to check.

Cleaner trains need to be a practical choice

Rail can have lower emissions per passenger-kilometre than road travel, yet an electric train ticket can still cost more. ^[8] The fare is not based on the electricity bill alone. Rail operators pay track-access charges, which the European Commission says can be a large share of operating costs and can affect ticket prices. ^[9] Fares also depend on service costs, demand, booking time and competition.

People often compare a train ticket with only the petrol or diesel used in a car. A fuller comparison includes tolls, parking, maintenance, insurance and vehicle depreciation. If governments want cleaner transport to be chosen more often, they need to make it accessible and affordable.

Give sustainable tourism tax relief now

Tax relief and financial support directly linked to sustainable tourism practices remain uneven across the EU. Austria offers one example: eligible tourism SMEs can apply for a sustainability bonus of up to 3.5% of eligible investment costs, subject to programme conditions and linked to an OeHT investment loan. It is a grant, not a tax refund. ^[10]

That is a useful start, but responsible businesses need broader, more direct support. Introduce tax relief for tourism entities that can demonstrate sustainable practices. Fund more practical projects. Reward measurable progress. Penalise polluters.

Should a tourism business have to become a bigger polluter before it can receive meaningful help to become cleaner? The answer should be no. Public policy should reward businesses reducing their impact now, while requiring freight companies to disclose the emissions behind the goods they move.