Add federal regulation requiring ships to simply not spew out pollution in population centers. They’ll need electric drives to navigate into major cities or they can dock in less populated areas (both of which are economic disasters for cruise companies - so obviously can’t be implemented on state level as they’d just switch destinations).

In general, yes, but New York is uniquely privileged as the most glamorous east cost destination and should just act decisively. This isn't the freight business moving to NJ and Oakland. This is bougie tourists who want to disembark straight into their destination.

> tourists who want to disembark straight into their destination

Hoboken, New Jersey and Red Hook, Brooklyn are roughly the same distance from the city.

Fair that's true, but note how the article mentioned many docking in Manhattan too. And at least in Red Hook you can truthfully say it's NYC.

Every single tax has this problem. The better alternative is that the cruise ships be held responsible for the increased rate of asthma development there. It would be interesting to see how a business that is supposed to make people feel better is going to react when there is both a public outcry and a lawsuit against them for the very thing.

Would you as a person go on a cruise when you knew it contributed directly to the asthma of others? At that point, I think going on a cruise from a different port would be the preference of others, regardless of taxes.