Passengers who booked trips have been told refunds will be issued in monthly installments

Life at Sea Cruises’ first three-year sailing was announced in March and promised passengers willing to fork out at least $29,999 per year

  • blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cruises oughta be banned for how polluting they are. Rich folks can have em back when theyve cleaned up their climate mess.

    • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      when theyve cleaned up their climate mess.

      Ah, a doe eyed optimist, I see.

      This oligarch party ain’t stopping until everything that can burn does. At this point hope is irrational, a side effect of rational despair.

      No one tells the wealth class anything. They tell us, and we obey like good lil capital generating livestock.

    • tankplanker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Apart from the areas others have mentioned they are also absolutely terrible for the local environment due to the number of tourists they drop on an area. We should ban them for that alone

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Rich folks

      Cruises are often cheaper than just going on vacation.

      My honeymoon cruise was less expensive than if we’d just flown to the Caribbean and stayed at an all-inclusive hotel.

    • Maeve@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No they may not. We acknowledge they’re filthy, rife with noro and other viruses, and aside from other pollution, dump raw sewage into open water.

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nations won’t stop using oil as long as it is economically viable.

      Banning cruise ships doesn’t matter if we still burn up the oil anyways.

      • JustMy2c@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are correct. Not using oil in one place, will only make it MORE AFFORDABLE for China and other mega pollution providers.

        • Maeve@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except 1) we sent our rubbish there and dumped it in the water, air and dirt, and it doesn’t stay put, 2) it doesn’t stay put, 3) we sent manufacturing there to avoid paying people minimum, let alone livable wage. How shallow thinking is amazes me.

          • JustMy2c@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            What the h does that have to do with anything?

            Fact of the current global economy is: you buy less oil (etc), other will snatch it up very quickly.

              • JustMy2c@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sorry, but facts remain facts. Lots of good things you can do for nature but spending less oil just for the heck of it will probably mean some other country WITHOUT FILTERS IN THEIR CHIMNEYS will use it, at Lower price.

                • Maeve@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And that’s an old paradigm that must die. I rebuke your negativity. We have the power but some would deceive us into thinking we’re bound. I rebuke that too.

                  • JustMy2c@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Sure, but it’s a real life situation that you won’t admit too. Other ways are needed between “saving” and banning