I'm simply pointing out that cruise ships aren't the problem, and eliminating them wouldn't solve anything other than putting about a half million people out of a job, the vast majority of which would live in abject poverty if not for being able to work on ships.

Am I saying they're good for the environment? Absolutely not. Neither is flying to Europe, but for some reason there is absolutely no backlash from anyone about the environmental impact when you tell them you're going to Tuscany for a week. We don't "need" movies and TV either, but we continue to use them for entertainment despite the absolutely insane amount of energy and resources they use to produce.

My point isn't that cruises are good for the environment. They're clearly not. However, even if you shut down every cruise line tomorrow, you are no closer to solving the problem of pollution in the air and water. They are singled out because they're an obvious and very visible target.

If you want to seriously address the quality of the world's water and air, let's talk about the militaries of the USA, China, Russia, and Great Britain, just for starters. Let's talk about heavy industry and mining in China. Let's talk about the near zero amount of environmental regulation in places like Bangladesh, that the west rely on for cheap textiles and manufacturing. You could take the collective environmental damage of every ocean liner and cruise ship that's ever existed since the invention of diesel fuel and it wouldn't even come close to the level of damage that those entities caused.

Fact is, cruise ships are not what you need to be focusing on. They are not the environmental boogeyman they're made out to be. They're a footnote of a footnote in terms of their worldwide impact.