I am a PADI certified SCUBA diver. I tried to take a SCUBA excursion each time we cruise warm water.
Reading about some misperception about cruiseline passengers destroy coral reef, I feel the need to debunk such myth and misleading comments.
I am sure anyone knows a little bit about SCUBA diving, would agree PADI is the authority in SUBA, as well as the founding father of Project AWARE.
http://www.projectaware.org/americas/english/contact.asp
PADI would not partner with Princess Cruiseline, if PADI thinks cruiseline passengers destroy coral reef - PADI and Princess has a partnership program called NEW WAVES DIVING PROGRAMS
http://www.newwaves.com/
There are diving and snorkeling excursions offered on every Princess Caribbean sailing, by PADI New Waves Programs. You can also earn your PADI SCUBA certificate onboard a Princess cruise by way of a full course, or a referral. Although I would not recommend anyone to waste his precious vacation time to do classroom work on a cruiseship - it is much better to take the referral program and do the classroom/pool sessions at one's home town.
I seriously doubt PADI would put its reputation on the line if cruiselines and their passengers are environmental destroyers.
FACTs are more important than hearsays. A little bit research also goes a long way.
With 2000 to 3000 passengers of each Caribbean cruise - there may be a dozen or even more ships cruising Caribbeans each week - it would be 30,000 or more passengers each week visiting the Caribbeans. There are 52 weeks a year. So you are talking about 1.5 million cruise passengers visiting the area per year. Of course there bound to have some passengers that do not respect the environment. Just like I have seen tourists in every single national park we visited, who threw away their trashes on the trails and other public places - same thing - there are always some bad examples among any group of people. However, I would not generalize that visitors to national parks destroy the nature.
It is the individuals, not a particular type of tourists, that respect, or destroy, the environment and the natural beauty.
I think one should be able to distinguish this important difference.
As for the income brought by cruiseline passengers versus the protection of the natural beauty - I really think this is a very delicate balance act.
First and utmost, if one have to struggle to make a living, 90% of ordinary folks would opt for better economy than for keeping the environment pristine.
Just like the Bryce family at Bryce Canyon - of course they thought it was like hell to lose their cow in such a place - because without their cow(s), they may not have foods, and they may not be able to survive. That was the harsh reality in their time. We lucky moderners hardly see things thru their eyes because we not only can feed ourselves comfortably, we can go out to take adventure to satisfy our mental needs. Put yourselves in their shoes and you may understand the situation a little bit better.
Or, seeing the little childrens hawking handicrafts on the streets at Cabo San Lucas, I bet you 100% they wish everyday there are tons of cruiseship passengers so at least a few would buy something from them... Or the owners of small restaurants lying along the streets surrounding each port... Or the cab drivers, or the tour operators of the islands, all these folks and their families would hope cruiseships continue to favor their ports.
Closer to home, you can ask the loggers at Northwest, who lost their jobs and livelihood, because environmental activists were successful in restricting logging to protect Spotted Owls habitats when human habitats were shutting down one by one. (Sure, one can argue, human should never encroach the wildlife habitats - in this case, we should all go back to caves, right?)
Finally, since we were talking LA traffic on this board, Californians should really give up their cars or at least do better in their public transportation system so not to destroy the already very polluted, damaged, environment. Dont kid yourself that the gas in CA is already the "clean" gas - there is no such thing is "clean" exhaust from the cars. Moreover, California being the rich state, so it wont allow the offshore drilling out of the California coast - the Not in My Backyard mentality - Yet, CA consume a good chunk of the products from offshore drilling out of Texas, Lousianna, Mississippi and Alabama. Why? Because these much poorer states cannot afford NOT to.
Everyone should watch "An Inconvenient Truth", especially those live in CA, in my opinion.
Reading about some misperception about cruiseline passengers destroy coral reef, I feel the need to debunk such myth and misleading comments.
I am sure anyone knows a little bit about SCUBA diving, would agree PADI is the authority in SUBA, as well as the founding father of Project AWARE.
http://www.projectaware.org/americas/english/contact.asp
PADI would not partner with Princess Cruiseline, if PADI thinks cruiseline passengers destroy coral reef - PADI and Princess has a partnership program called NEW WAVES DIVING PROGRAMS
http://www.newwaves.com/
There are diving and snorkeling excursions offered on every Princess Caribbean sailing, by PADI New Waves Programs. You can also earn your PADI SCUBA certificate onboard a Princess cruise by way of a full course, or a referral. Although I would not recommend anyone to waste his precious vacation time to do classroom work on a cruiseship - it is much better to take the referral program and do the classroom/pool sessions at one's home town.
I seriously doubt PADI would put its reputation on the line if cruiselines and their passengers are environmental destroyers.
FACTs are more important than hearsays. A little bit research also goes a long way.
With 2000 to 3000 passengers of each Caribbean cruise - there may be a dozen or even more ships cruising Caribbeans each week - it would be 30,000 or more passengers each week visiting the Caribbeans. There are 52 weeks a year. So you are talking about 1.5 million cruise passengers visiting the area per year. Of course there bound to have some passengers that do not respect the environment. Just like I have seen tourists in every single national park we visited, who threw away their trashes on the trails and other public places - same thing - there are always some bad examples among any group of people. However, I would not generalize that visitors to national parks destroy the nature.
It is the individuals, not a particular type of tourists, that respect, or destroy, the environment and the natural beauty.
I think one should be able to distinguish this important difference.
As for the income brought by cruiseline passengers versus the protection of the natural beauty - I really think this is a very delicate balance act.
First and utmost, if one have to struggle to make a living, 90% of ordinary folks would opt for better economy than for keeping the environment pristine.
Just like the Bryce family at Bryce Canyon - of course they thought it was like hell to lose their cow in such a place - because without their cow(s), they may not have foods, and they may not be able to survive. That was the harsh reality in their time. We lucky moderners hardly see things thru their eyes because we not only can feed ourselves comfortably, we can go out to take adventure to satisfy our mental needs. Put yourselves in their shoes and you may understand the situation a little bit better.
Or, seeing the little childrens hawking handicrafts on the streets at Cabo San Lucas, I bet you 100% they wish everyday there are tons of cruiseship passengers so at least a few would buy something from them... Or the owners of small restaurants lying along the streets surrounding each port... Or the cab drivers, or the tour operators of the islands, all these folks and their families would hope cruiseships continue to favor their ports.
Closer to home, you can ask the loggers at Northwest, who lost their jobs and livelihood, because environmental activists were successful in restricting logging to protect Spotted Owls habitats when human habitats were shutting down one by one. (Sure, one can argue, human should never encroach the wildlife habitats - in this case, we should all go back to caves, right?)
Finally, since we were talking LA traffic on this board, Californians should really give up their cars or at least do better in their public transportation system so not to destroy the already very polluted, damaged, environment. Dont kid yourself that the gas in CA is already the "clean" gas - there is no such thing is "clean" exhaust from the cars. Moreover, California being the rich state, so it wont allow the offshore drilling out of the California coast - the Not in My Backyard mentality - Yet, CA consume a good chunk of the products from offshore drilling out of Texas, Lousianna, Mississippi and Alabama. Why? Because these much poorer states cannot afford NOT to.
Everyone should watch "An Inconvenient Truth", especially those live in CA, in my opinion.
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
