click here

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ryndam:
I'm sure it's also possible to modify the existing ships, but it's to be seen if cruise lines will spend millions of dollars in ships they may keep only for few years more, in order to reduce pollution.

---

I suggest that the Feds ARREST THEM and seize the ships, just as has been done in bankruptcy judgments!

I know, I know, that would raise hell with cruisepassengers like thee and me, and many others who do not read these postings.

But you have to get the undivided attention of the freebooting cruise lines. And the loss of kilobucks of cruise dollars per day in revenues, plus the costs of relocation of stranded passengers will do just that.

And headlines would not be reading, "Cruise Lines accused of dumping," or "Cruise Lines fined for dumping." Banner headlines reading "Thousands of Cruise Passengers stranded at XXXXX as Feds seize cruise ship for dumping pollutants!"

With the Bush/Cheney machine dont be surprised if it is sold to logging interests.

[ 11-09-2002: Message edited by: ROTTERBRANDT ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dolphins:
Attention Rotterbrandt: In case you haven't heard, trees are a renewable resource. The logging interests you despise provide materials to build homes, furniture, pianos and promenade decks. Too many envioronmentalists would prefer to leave all the forests alone for the next forest fire. Better to build than to burn.

---

Trees ARE a renewable resource - but NOT OVERNIGHT!

But, fellow posters, once again we have veered off-topic. The issue is/was "How can the dumping of wastes and toxics as currently carried out by cruise ships be stopped?" The topic is applicable wordlwide, from Alaska to Norway to Tahiti.

I stated in an earlier posting, that I wanted to see authorities, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction impacted, arrest and or seize the ships...right there, where they did their thing.

This will inconvenience cruisers, sure. But it is the only way that this practice can be stopped. If they can "arrest" the vessel in bankruptcy actions, they could, and should, do the same thing to cruise polluters.

ON THE SPOT!!

Lets get back on this topic and stick to it, rather than engage in geopolitical caterwaulings (with which I generally agree, Kyoto and all of that, but are off topic).

[ 11-11-2002: Message edited by: Cambodge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cambodge:

I stated in an earlier posting, that I wanted to see authorities, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction impaced, arrest and or seize the ships...right there, where they did their thing.

This will inconvenience cruisers, sure. But it is the only way that this practice can be stopped. If they can "arrest" the vessel in bankruptcy actions, they could, and should, do the same thing to cruise polluters.

ON THE SPOT!!

Lets get back on this topic and stick to it, rather than engage in geopolitical caterwaulings (with which I generally agree, Kyoto and all of that, but are off topic).

---

Couldn't agree more. I like the idea of "arresting" the vessel in port. To be sure this would more than inconvenience the passengers but I susspect the the cruise line would have to compensate each passenger in full ie; refund, free cruise in the future etc. in order to stay in and continue to get business.

[ 11-10-2002: Message edited by: Commodore ]

1. I breathe air.
"Environmentalists" are trying to keep it clean but Bush's utility buddies want to keep coal-plant emissions in the unhealthy range.

2. I drink water.
Does 'acid rain' resonate with you? It should in upstate NY in any event. But Bush's buddies in the chemical industry continue to lobby the EPA to permit more ground and surface water pollution.

3. And, probably like most of the posters here, I eat fish. I love fish. And, as I understand it, much of the fish I eat come from waters into which cruise ships are dumping wastes and toxics.

Yes, the suggested actions would see "that the fish are being protected."

But somehow I look at it that I am being protected as well. So if it involves zapping the cruise lines and inconveniencing the passengers, so be it.

If this makes me an environmentalist, so be it as well.

Not to worry, the environmental despoilers are now back in full charge...for the time being at least.

[ 11-12-2002: Message edited by: Cambodge ]

It is sad that certain commercial interests in the cruise industry do not concern themselves with the future of our planet. It is even more unfortunate that vacationers are made party to the destruction of the very environment they paid to enjoy. I think, given the opportunity to reflect, that most inconvenienced cruise passengers would agree that their inconvenience is worth protecting the environment, and punnishing those who would disrespect it in the name of profit.

I'm against dumping chemicals and harmful waste into the oceans and I hope that the cruise lines do what they can to eliminate this problem.

I have personally met our president (before he became president), and happen to know that he has a serious concern for our environment and intends to do what he can to reduce and / or eliminate harmful issues that effect our environment. But this takes time and can't be resolved as quickly as some of you would like to see happen.

This discussion is relevant to cruising.
It is important that cruise customers know the dastardly deeds the cruise lines commit.

If we vote with our pocketbooks, the cruise lines may listen. The 'parking ticket' level fines levied seem to be too little too late.

So Mickey Arison, Peter Ratliffe, Richard Fain, and Colin Veitch will have to do without a swimming pool for the horses.

All the cruise lines have to do is not cut corners with the sanitation systems and follow the rules: EASY ENOUGH

[ 11-12-2002: Message edited by: ROTTERBRANDT ]