Can Phuket’s Green Tourism Experiment Save Itself and the Planet?
Phuket isn’t just a beach destination anymore; it’s a petri dish. Can tourism, an industry predicated on consumption and mobility, become a vector for sustainability? Can capital, traditionally indifferent to ecological limits, become a force for planetary health? More specifically: Can a market solve a problem caused by markets? Thailand’s experiment offers a glimpse at the messy, often contradictory, realities of sustainable capitalism. Success would be a blueprint; failure, a stark warning about the limits of “green growth.”
The Phuket News reports that the Thai tourism sector, particularly in Phuket, is scrambling towards sustainability, propelled by consumer demands and, crucially, green financing from banks like Siam Commercial Bank (SCB). SCB’s CEO, Kris Chantanotoke, frames it plainly: “the tourism sector is the main engine that keeps the Thai economy hopeful.” The catch, of course, is that this engine has historically spewed carbon and inequality in equal measure.
The transition to “less brown” businesses, as SCB terms it, goes beyond swapping incandescent bulbs. It demands a fundamental re-evaluation of the relationship between tourism, ecology, and local communities. It necessitates investment in renewables, waste management, and a deliberate shift towards local supply chains. The Kata Group, for instance, utilizes fruit waste for bathroom amenities and donates surplus food. As Kata Group’s chairman, Pramookpisitt Achariyachai, puts it: “Sustainability is not a choice, but a matter of survival for tourism businesses.”
Sustainability is not a choice, but a matter of survival for tourism businesses.
But let’s not mistake marketing for metamorphosis. This green pivot is unfolding within the same global system that created the problem in the first place: a system defined by capitalism, climate change, and widening inequalities. As the tourism industry adopts “sustainable” practices, the risk is that it entrenches existing power structures while relabeling business-as-usual. Is “eco-tourism” simply another extraction industry, rebranded? Are loans from Thai banks leveling the playing field, or primarily benefiting multinational chains with established brand recognition and access to capital?
Consider the historical trajectory. The demand for sustainable tourism is being stoked, in no small part, by climate anxiety in wealthier Western nations — particularly in Europe. These tourists are increasingly demanding “responsible” travel experiences. This demand creates a market signal, incentivizing financial institutions like SCB to offer green loans and prompting hotels to adopt eco-friendly practices. But this market-driven transformation rarely, if ever, addresses the underlying power dynamics. Will the benefits of this “green” boom trickle down to local workers or family-owned businesses — the very entities that constitute the core of Phuket’s cultural appeal? Or will they be squeezed out by larger, more “efficient” operators?
The “race to the top” in sustainable tourism can easily devolve into a regulatory burden that benefits incumbents. The Thai government’s goal of certifying 600 hotels in Phuket as “Green Hotel Plus” by next year certainly establishes a standardized framework. But as Saharat Jivavisitnont, vice-president of the Thai Hotels Association’s southern chapter, observes, it also raises the cost of operations and introduces new barriers to entry. How can small, locally owned guesthouses, often more environmentally benign by virtue of their scale and lower resource intensity, compete with sprawling resorts flush with capital? This phenomenon echoes what Mariana Mazzucato describes as “socialized risk, privatized reward” — where governments bear the costs of regulation, while larger players reap the economic benefits.
These structural contradictions point to a deeper challenge. As political economist Kate Raworth argues in her Doughnut Economics framework, a truly sustainable economy must operate within a “safe and just space,” meeting the needs of all within planetary boundaries. Simply swapping one engine of economic growth (conventional tourism) for another (sustainable tourism) without addressing the fundamental issues of equity and justice will ultimately prove insufficient. We risk creating a system where the wealthy can assuage their climate guilt through “responsible” consumption, while the underlying drivers of environmental degradation and social inequality remain untouched.
Ultimately, the story unfolding in Phuket is a real-time experiment in whether capitalism can adapt quickly and radically enough to avert climate catastrophe and social collapse. Whether this adaptation delivers on its promise of sustainability and equity, or merely dresses up the status quo in green clothing, remains to be seen. What is undeniably clear is that Phuket’s future, and perhaps the future of tourism itself, hinges on the choices it makes today. And the world is watching closely, not just for a vacation destination, but for a glimpse of its own possible futures.
