Will Hawaii’s New $100M Climate Fee From Tourists Actually Fix Anything?

Nearly 10 million people visit Hawaii each year. Now, all of them will help fund the first-in-the-nation climate resilience fee designed to raise $100 million annually in its first and likely not last levy. This will be paid primarily by visitors as a function of an additional accommodation tax. That new law, just signed by Governor Josh Green, brings those taxes to about 19% and, for the first time, applies them to cruise ships.

Supporters call it groundbreaking, while critics call it another vague money grab. Either way, the stakes are high. The critical question is: Can this fee deliver what Hawaii says it will? It is one of Hawaii’s boldest new promises, with high stakes.

Hawaii’s new approach: tax visitors and some residents.

This time, the revenue will come primarily from tourism. State leaders say it’s fair that those enjoying Hawaii’s coastlines, reefs, and trails should help fund the protection of those same places. Hawaii residents will also pay the green fee and Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT) when staying at hotels and vacation rentals.

Governor Green says the funds will restore beaches, reduce wildfire risks, and “harden infrastructure critical to the health and safety of all who call Hawaii home.” Lawmakers also say the new law includes formal oversight through the Climate Advisory Team and a budget process that will be revisited each legislative session.

Some visitors don’t see it that way. “Grifting off the tourists appears to have replaced surfing as the Hawaiian state sport,” one reader commented under Industry Prepares Showdown Over Hawaii’s New Visitor Tax. “Money is fungible,” he added. “It just frees up general funds for pet projects.”

One thing for sure is that the more you tax visitors, the less they will spend on activities, dining, and in stores.

Not the first or the last fee. Not the first promise either.

This isn’t the first time Hawaii has added fees in the name of environmental protection. From visitor access permits to beach and state park entrance and parking charges, the state has layered on costs year after year. But whether those funds have truly protected the environment or just filled gaps elsewhere remains murky.

In The Cost of Paradise: Hawaii’s Neglect Leaves Visitors Wondering, readers shared countless personal stories about broken restrooms, unsafe trails, and worn-out roads—all despite years of taxes and visitor surcharges. The question isn’t just “Will this new fee work?” It’s “Why would this time be different?”

Regular visitor and Oahu resident John commented, “The North Shore is now covered in overgrown Razor Grass. By August, it’ll be dried out and ready to burn. I don’t recall it ever being this bad.”

Cruise ships join the visitor fee spotlight.

One of the most controversial elements of the new law is that it extends the TAT to cruise passengers. This is a first for Hawaii—and it’s already dividing opinion. Some readers say cruise lines bring in large sums with little impact. Others argue they bypass local hotels and leave communities with minimal benefit.

According to Industry Prepares Showdown Over Hawaii’s New Visitor Tax, the cruise industry estimates that per-passenger taxes and fees could rise from about $200 to as much as $350 under the new law.

One commenter wrote, “If you tax cruise passengers, then why not military ships or container crews? It’s not about the environment—it’s about picking who pays.”

Still, lawmakers say this closes a longstanding loophole. The fee applies to everyone who stays in the islands—no exceptions.

The deeper challenge: trust.

What’s really at stake isn’t just beaches or trail maintenance. It’s trust.

Visitors and residents alike have become increasingly skeptical of where tax money goes. As one reader, Randy W., recently said, “Every new fee is for the same thing, yet those upgrades are never done. The coffers should be overflowing by now.”

The new climate fee promises transparency through the Climate Advisory Team, which will help select and monitor projects. But will that be enough to change public perception?

What success would look like.

If this fee is going to succeed, it has to deliver more than budget line items. It can’t just divert existing funds for something else. It has to result in visible change.

That could mean trails and roads cleared of invasive brush, shorelines protected from rising tides, cleaner restrooms at public beaches, parks with staff who aren’t stretched completely thin, and projects the public can point to and say: That came from the fee.

Right now, even supporters are in “wait and see” mode. One reader on Big Plan To Fix Hawaii Tourism Just Got A Brutal Reality Check asked: “Why should we believe this money won’t end up like the rest?”

A turning point for tourism?

In some ways, this new climate fee is Hawaii’s test case, with global implications. It’s about visitor-funded sustainability.

If it works, Hawaii could lead the way in showing how tourism dollars can directly improve the environment across the U.S. If it fails—or quietly dissolves into the general budget process—it could deepen the mistrust already reshaping visitor behavior here and elsewhere.

The outcome matters more than ever for a state that depends so heavily on tourism.

Your turn to sound off.

Whether this initiative succeeds or fails, its $100 million boost will not only shape Hawaii’s budget but also the future of Hawaii travel.

Do you believe this fee can rebuild trust and deliver tangible results? Or is it just another charge visitors will pay without seeing any benefits? Please let us know in your comments.