Nicola Sturgeon’s speech last Tuesday setting out the Scottish government’s legislative programme for the year ahead confirmed what was already pretty clear. Scottish councils are set to be the first in the UK with the power to levy charges on visitors, with Edinburgh likely to lead the way.

        Tourist taxes are not new. The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan has a longstanding policy of charging visitors a daily fee. France’s tax on overnight stays was introduced to assist thermal spa（温泉）towns to develop, and around half of French local authorities use it today.

        But such levies are on the rise. Moves by Barcelona and Venice to deal with the phenomenon of “over-tourism” through the use of charges have recently gained prominence. Japan and Greece are among the countries to have recently introduced tourist taxes.

        That the UK lags behind is due to our weak, by international standards, local government, as well as the opposition to taxes and regulation of our aggressively pro-market ruling party. Some UK cities have lobbied without success for the power to levy a charge on visitors. Such levies are no universal remedy as the amounts raised would be tiny compared with what has been taken away by central government since 2010. Still, it is to be hoped that the Scottish government’s bold move will prompt others to act. There is no reason why visitors to the UK, or domestic tourists on holiday in hotspots such as Cornwall, should be exempt from taxation—particularly when vital local services including waste collection, park maintenance and arts and culture spending are under unprecedented strain.

        On the contrary, compelling tourists to make a financial contribution to the places they visit beyond their personal consumption should be part of a wider cultural shift. Westerners with disposable incomes have often behaved as if they have a right to go wherever they choose with little regard for the consequences. Just as the environmental harm caused by aviation and other transport must come under far greater scrutiny, the social cost of tourism must also be confronted. This includes the impact of short-term lets on housing costs and quality of life for residents. Several European capitals, including Paris and Berlin, are leading a campaign for tougher regulation by the European Union. It also includes the impact of overcrowding, litter and the kinds of behaviour associated with noisy parties.

        There is no “one size fits all” solution to this problem. The existence of new revenue streams for some but not all councils is complicated, and businesses are often opposed, fearing higher costs will make them uncompetitive. But those places that want them must be given the chance to make tourist taxes work.

解析：A。根据题干中的Western tourists可定位至原文第五段。该段第二句指出，拥有可支配收入的西方人经常表现得好像他们有权去任何他们想去的地方，几乎不用考虑后果（consequences）。接着在下一句中指出了这种后果就是旅游业的社会成本（social cost of tourism）。A项是对第五段第二、三句的概括，因此A项正确。

错项排除：原文中并没有提到游客对于旅游税的反应，也未提到旅游在游客生活中的地位，因此B项的mind paying for additional services和C项的an important part of their life均无原文依据，故排除。第五段第三句中提到，交通方式造成的环境破坏必须受到更严格的审查（under far greater scrutiny），并不是说西方游客将旅游业的影响置于审查之下，故D项排除。