I will reply and move on. I said if they meant no, then it means no.
1. I could care less what they meant when they said no. Things change all the time. No’s can become yes as I pointed out. Studies can and are manipulated all the time. It is what the companies that do the studies get paid to do. Make the study look like what the people who pay you to do the study want it to look like. Reality
2. Key West voting on it turns out mean diddly. They were overridden. They said no and lost. Cruising wins. The State rules in all of these issues, not a little island town. As it should be.
3. According to Cruise Mapper, if you call it a win in Bar harbor, seems like a paper tiger win to me. https://www.cruisemapper.com/ports/bar-harbor-port-543 And that is just May.
4. Push back on Alaskan ports from cities has been going on (and admittedly the state as well) goes back and forth like a ping pong ball. Just like Norway, they can do what they want. They do that at their own peril. You dismiss it, but it is real.
I get your point. That said, cruising is not the evil axis, they had made errors (not even close to other industries, when it comes to ecology. If Norway, Bar Harbor and Alaska want to drastically limit cruising and label it green, as I said before, that is their decision. Those towns and cities will suffer and suffer big. Telling the cruise industry they “have to change” and not even tell them what they need to change or whether it is realistic is nothing more than a red herring. I know it and you know it. I will restate my original post, and I mean it. That is a shame. We, the cruising community are worse off from their decisions.