Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
cant role in undermining
legislative attempts to control smoke in the United States and Germany. As in
Britain, few US citizens attempted to enforce the Common Law principle that
harmful
Concern for industrial interests also played a signi
cult to link
any damage caused to property to a particular polluter. And the commonly accepted
notion that smoke meant employment and prosperity similarly prevented the tough
municipal regulation of polluting businesses. In the United States, the
'
smoke nuisances
'
must be abated, especially as it was so dif
rst
'
smoke
ordinances
were not passed until the early 1880s, with Chicago, Cincinnati,
Cleveland, Pittsburgh and St. Louis leading the way. But these anti-smoke laws
were never rigorously implemented, for fear that
'
might hamper
economic growth in industrialising America. Despite the calls of some anti-pollu-
tion activists for the authorities to
'
over-regulation
'
regarding smoke control, few lawsuits
were brought against manufacturers. Instead, in the US the emphasis came to be
placed on
'
get tough
'
by well-trained engineers, who advised businessmen
about the latest technological advances for reducing air pollution from their
works.
31
In Germany, laws to control smoke were passed during the 1870s and
1880s in cities such as Breslau, Nuremburg, Stuttgart and Freiburg. By the early
twentieth century, local laws in Hamburg, Dresden and Munich were even being
used systematically in the
'
smoke inspection
'
ght against smoke. But before the Second World War,
German municipal government overall was unsuccessful in protecting townspeople
and the environment from the deleterious impacts of smoke pollution. Indeed, it has
been argued that the Ruhrgebiet
—
Germany
'
s main urban-industrial region
—
was a
rather than nature.
32
Smoke abatement made little progress until the interwar years, when the tran-
sition to cleaner energy systems, based on gas, oil and electricity, began in earnest.
In the United States, cleaner sources of energy
place where
edgling industries were
'
consciously protected
'
were abun-
dant and inexpensive, and their rapid development challenged the dominance of
coal (although
—
oil and natural gas
—
remained sovereign in many northeastern and mid-
western cities until the late 1940s and 1950s). In 1920, coal still accounted for
almost 70 % of American energy production. But it only provided around a quarter
of the nation
'
King Coal
'
s energy in 1955, replaced by oil and natural gas and which by this
time held 41 and 26 % of the market share respectively.
33
In Britain, where coal
was used to produce both gas and electricity, rates of growth were slower and
progress disrupted by the outbreak of the Second World War (
'
was used
extensively in the interwar home for lighting and cooking, but it remained
uncompetitive for heating purposes). Moreover, gas works and power stations soon
became major polluters in their own right.
34
But
'
town gas
'
the growing availability of
affordable
forms of energy saw anti-pollution campaigners on both
sides of the Atlantic increase the pressure on governments to eradicate smoke,
'
smokeless
'
31
Stradling (
1999
) and Stradling and Thorsheim (
1999
).
32
Uek
ggemeier (
1994
).
33
Nye (
1998
), Stradling (
1999
) and Tarr (
1996
).
34
ö
tter (
2009
) and Br
ü
Luckin (
1990
), Sheail (
1991
), Thorsheim (
2002
) and Mosley (
2009
).
