SMOKE FIFTY YEARS AGO (COMMENT). I posted here on how the economics courses that I took in the sixties analyzed the problem of air pollution, but did not consider its importance (or its pervasiveness). Annalisa commented, “Does this mean economists are really on the cutting edge, but they themselves don’t even realize it?” I think she is being too generous to economists. The most I would claim is that traditional economic tools have explanatory power. The credit for the changes has to go to the environmentalists. Kids, it is hard to realize how different the world of the fifties was. Every train had smoking cars. If you were on an airplane near a major city, the city would be surrounded by a brown haze.
Categories
Archives
Recent Comments
- Gary Nuetzel on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Francesca on EATING PEAS WITH A KNIFE.
- avon wilsmore on CHEATING IN CHAMPIONSHIP BRIDGE.
- Anonymous on THE LANGUAGE WEIRDNESS INDEX.
- James Friscia on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Lickity Splitfingers on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
- Ken Babcock on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- David Quemere on THE OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE STARTS ITS 32ND SEASON. (COMMENT).
- Nicholas Schaefer on THE SECOND OLDEST FANTASY BASEBALL LEAGUE.
Meta
I used to think that I was prone to terrible hangovers. I now realize that it was the pervasive smoke at parties that was far more to blame than the amount I drank (too much to be sure!)
Do you think it was cigarette smoking that was causing the haze around cities? That’s what I infer from the smoking car comment. I find that hard to believe, although I suppose it could be possible.
I had always assumed it was a shift away from coal power, and better emissions controls on vehicles that improved air pollution.
Careless writing on my part. It was the emissions controls that made finally reduced the pollution around the cities.