Geographic Perspective and the Crystal Serenity Arctic Cruise

Question

I have to look at different point of views from different speakers about the question: Should large scale cruise ships be allowed to tour the North West Passage and the high arctic? POV 1. Social View - A passenger on the cruise ship
2. Political view - Spokesperson as a Coast Guard
3. Economic View - A community member from one of the small towns the ship will visit
4. Environmental View - An environmentalist

Answer 1

Social View as a Passenger on the Cruise Ship

it’s amazing to travel through such a rare and beautiful part of the world and see Arctic wildlife, glaciers, and Indigenous communities. It’s an exciting way to learn about climate change and the environment firsthand.

Political View as Coast Guard Spokesperson

From a political and safety point of view, the Coast Guard must make sure these cruises are safe and follow the law. The Arctic is very remote and dangerous, so if something goes wrong, rescue missions would be difficult and expensive. Canada’s Arctic sovereignty needs to be protected and ensure that ships respect Indigenous and environmental regulations. Large cruise ships bring new challenges for safety, communication, and emergency response in this fragile region.

Economic View as a Community Member

Locals experience benefits and downsides of the cruise ships visiting. On one hand, they bring tourists who buy local crafts, food, and services, which helps the economy albeit without an overwhelming number of visitors arriving at once and ensuring the money stays in the community.

Environmental View – Environmentalist

From an environmental point of view, cruise ships should not travel through the Arctic. These ships burn fuel that adds to global warming and can pollute the ocean and air. They also risk disturbing animals like whales and polar bears, and an accident or oil spill could be disastrous in such a fragile ecosystem.