• JasSmith@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I suppose it depends what you mean by “near.” Around 41% of Europeans live in coastal regions. Most of them live in larger urban areas near ports. That’s hundreds of millions of people.

    I’m also opposed to cruise ships, but entire cities rely on tourism for survival. The sheer human suffering which would result from a ban is incalculable.

    • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      cruise ships do little for local tourism. The people only spend a short time, maybe buy some souvenirs and have a meal. Meanwhile the pollution drives away land based tourists, that would actually spend time and money in the local economy.

      • JasSmith@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Local tourism businesses disagree with your assessment. Every town which has banned or seeks to ban cruise ships has been almost universally rebuked by tourism businesses. It’s true that cruise tourists spend less than other tourists, but it’s income which would otherwise not enter the local economy.

        This article provides an interesting case study on New Zealand and cruise spending. The economic benefits are clear and convincing. If this were to end, thousands of direct and supporting businesses would fail, and tens of thousands of people would be without work. It would create a large GDP and budget gap, too, meaning cut social services.