Environmentalism in 1880
Thu, Mar 6, 2008
Environmental Graffiti Will be Changing Dramatically Soon. Get a Sneak Preview By Signing Up Here.
As the environmental movement looks towards the future, it can sometimes forget its past.
London’s fogs are famous, but they’ve also been deadly. Image by Myk Reeve
This series is an attempt to provide a bit of perspective on how the environmental movement got to where it is today. So far we’ve covered a 1306 coal ban in England, an Indian emperor dedicated to protecting wildlife in 250 B.C., environmentalism in the Roman Empire, Benjamin Franklin’s environmental impact, the massacre of a tribe of environmentalists in 1778 and the forestry management programs of the Japanese Edo period.
Today we’ll begin in London in 1880, where years of pollution were about to take a heavy toll.
If you recall the first article in the series you’ll remember that England had been dealing with the ill effects of coal pollution for centuries. In 1306 King Edward had even banned the burning of coal with little in the way of results.
After the industrial revolution there was even more air pollution. With all that coal smoke and industrial pollution in one city something was bound to happen, and of course it did. On the 26th of January, 1880 a thick, slow-moving fog rolled over the city.
This wasn’t the first time a heavy fog had swamped the city. In 1813 a week long fog swept over the English capital, limiting visibility to the point that even the most experienced of London travellers were lost. The Prince Regent himself attempted to move to another of his official residences, but was forced to turn back. In 1873, a fog that was said to reek of coal tar filled parts of London, allegedly making the death rate rise 40%.
Then the 1880 fog came. The thick, soupy fog was a mix of pollution from coal burned to heat homes and pollution from factories. They came together to create a toxic mix of sulphur dioxide and combustion particles.
This choking smog was extremely deadly. For three days it hung over London, and by the time it cleared irreparable damage had been done to many in the city. The young, elderly, and those with respiratory problems suffered most. Far more than just those groups died however.
When it was all over an estimated 11,776 people were killed by the fog according to the Open University- some, however, say the figure was much lower, more like 2,200. The East End, with its higher concentration of factories and low-lying areas that made it hard for fog to escape, was affected the worst.
While the fog horrified London, very little was done about its source. Several more fogs in February 1882, December 1891, December 1892 and November 1948 killed thousands, but it wasn’t until 1952 that people began to think about air pollution in a more modern way.
In December 1952 a mix of fog and coal smoke again swept through London, killing 4,000 or so residents. For whatever reason, perhaps newer science and ideas, people finally began to really fight against air pollution. Before, air pollution was generally an accepted part of life in the city. Afterwards, these killer fogs helped make the view that air pollution was a preventable scourge much more widespread than it had been before.
If you want to keep up with the rest of the series and find out all the not so late breaking environmental news, why not subcribe to our RSS feed? We’ll even throw in a free album.
You Might Also Like Our Friends' Posts From the Intertubes
“The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else.”
3 Trackbacks For This Post
-
Environmentalism in 1880: The Fog of Death - Nerdcore Says:
March 7th, 2008 at 4:40 pm[...] Link [...]
-
wonderment » Blog Archive » Republicans, look away! Says:
March 7th, 2008 at 6:15 pm[...] as I was browsing the internet today, I ran across an article entitled “Environmentalism in 1880.” I haven’t read it yet. Can’t tell you if it’s any good. That’s not [...]
-
New Breed of Nerd » Weekend Linkstravaganza Says:
March 8th, 2008 at 9:03 am[...] Think London is polluted now? Wait till you hear about 1880! [...]
March 7th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
More tree hugging scare tactics.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Atleast half the people are below average, plenty of examples abound.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Another great argument for nuclear power…
March 7th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Ben and Greg your condescending attitude will get you no where.
Anyone who argues with proven facts needs help. Keep in mind; no one cares how ignorant you are.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Hey Ben and Greg, sounds like you guys need to move to India or China… the air there is just wonderful… and you can talk about how unintelligent people are and rant against the tree huggers all day long, while you cough up blood from the pollution that you are breathing.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Ahhhhhhh environmental propaganda is the worst kind. I can’t wait till everything realizes how much of a hoax global warming is and then they slap Al Gore in the face.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
@MikeT agreed, we need more nuclear power, preferably with pebble bed reactor technology that is absolutely scientifically impossible to have a meltdown.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
ted, greg and ben
suck on my bottom fog
March 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
those who believe global climate change is not real need to take a science class. go back to your hay stack bed and stfu, scientists have already proven over and over again that global climate change is real.
it’s ok though, dont feel too stupid, “At least half the people are below average, plenty of examples abound”….ted, ben, and greg.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
These comments are accurate and enlightening. For example I didn’t know that environmental propaganda was wthe worst kind and that Al Gore deserved a smack in the face until I read the musings of a young ted. This kid is way too busy to capitalize the first letter of his name. Too busy to listen to scientific research or believe historical facts. This is a man I want to be. Because if your head is up your ass all the time, you don’t notice when it smells like shit.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
It’s ironic to see how one can tell the country of origin of commenters just by the attitude.
Quick fact, last serious study on CO2 pollution puts USA at the top of the list, with nearly FOUR times as much emissions as other countries.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_199-environment-pollution-carbon-dioxide-1999
Al Gore is respected worldwide for his commitment, yet his fellow citizens and the government of nation continually discredit him for his ecological views.
U.S.A, sorry to say this but you people are very gullible for believing statements such as the ones made by your president who cited a recent Department of Energy report that concludes it would be too costly to regulate CO2; he also claimed that CO2 is not considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
Propaganda made to protect the economy, who cares how mother earth will be in 100 years, what is important is the profits made today.
Al Gore, is kind of a hero to me for standing up and speaking out on this nonsense. He is the laughing stock of many americans, but in my book, he cares about our children’s future, and will be remembered in history for his devotion to the (lost) cause.
March 7th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
“those who believe global climate change is not real need to take a science class. go back to your hay stack bed and stfu, scientists have already proven over and over again that global climate change is real.”
ann, i suggest that you take a science class AND take your head out of the sand. If you did your research, you will discover that AGW theory is entirely based in climate models, and climate models are as accurate at predicting the climate as tea leaves are for predicting the future.
NOTHING in climate science regarding AGW has yet anywhere near been proven. If you believe it has, then you’re even more gullible and clueless than you appear.
btw the current ‘global’ warming isn’t even global.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Is that picture really from 1880? :O And that actually is a bunch of fog. I bet it was a nightmare driving with that climate.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
J, I hope your standards for action reflect a consistency across all potential dangers. I hope your not one of those individuals who justify military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers get thriftily ignored because they are not “proved”. Let me remind you that climate models function using the science of statistics, same as the unproven, just a theory, quantum mechanics. (You know quantum mechanics was used to build the atomic bomb, right?)
I got’yer proof. Right here!
March 7th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Wow. It is interesting how the conversation threads shifted from “killer fog” to “global warming.” It is fact that there were several fogs in London that killed thousands of people. Just because you don’t like to hear what is being said doesn’t make it propaganda.
As for global warming/cooling/change whatever, does it matter if it is real? Can we at least agree the the emissions from our factories, (coal/nat. gas) power plants, and motor vehicles are bad? If you are uncertain, may I suggest standing in a closed garage with a car running for a minute or so. I believe that should be sufficient proof, albeit it not scientifically rigorous. Whether or not we are contributing to the change we are seeing in our planet is irrelevant to the argument about whether we should be doing everything in our power to reducing the green house gases we are producing. Even if they are doing no damage to the planet as a whole, emission from cars combined with the emissions from coal power planets are creating smog in our largest cities and this is killing people; albeit it not on the scale of the London Killed Fogs, but people die from smog directly — probably more indirectly via premature aging and disease. Is it wrong to try to change things to keep people for getting sick or dying?
I mean, if they are wrong about global warming and we do all this, what have we lost? Money? We spend more every year as a race blowing each other up than we would lose trying to reduce our dependence of fossil fuels, hell, it may even cut down on some of the fighting when we no longer care about trapped carbon in the ground. Our Economies? It’s be clear, someone is going to get rich making these environmental technologies and someone is going to lose their revenue stream. It doesn’t mean that it will destroy our economies, just change them. This is always happening. Every 50 years or so, there is a major shift in an industry or two and the new kids on the block innovate and change the game, forcing the established companies either adapt or die. I see this as no major difference. Hell, think of it as a way to force everyone to spend money replacing outdated vehicles and equipment with new ones. Government mandated consumerism.
With all that said, though, the the question should not be what if global warming is false, but rather what if they are right and we do nothing? I could think of no greater tragedy.
March 7th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
This article talks more about injuring and killing people from coal dust than it does about the environment.
While this thread cannot agree if global warming exists, at least we can agree on keeping people from getting hurt.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:46 am
I have to agree that we don’t have a great enough time series to know for sure whether or not global warming is being caused by humans. Clearly cooling and heating cycles have occurred in the past without any human intervention.
However, I see environmental protection more as a moral obligation. Simply coming back to the golden rule, if everyone on Earth consumed like you do what would the world look like? Not a very pretty place I can promise you. That is why those of us fortunate enough to live well enough to waste time arguing over such topics have a moral obligation to take a stand on them. And by stand I don’t mean posting BS on the net, but doing real world things to have an impact.
March 9th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Like all good religions, Global Warming® has a High Priest (Al Gore), it has a Great Satan (the US and capitalism), it has victims (the children, of course); it has its redemptive path (just drive a Pious!), it has sacraments (organic food, of course), it has disciples (the New York Times, CNN, etc). It has a Judas (the founder of Greenpeace) and it has a chapel at every University.
Global Warming® a complete and utter lie, a fairy taled foisted upon us by a swindler who flunked out of Divinity School, which should have doomed him to a richly deserved obscurity. Instead, he stood beside the most venal criminal ever to set foot on public property– Bill Clinton– and presided over a treasonous failure to respond to the growing threat of Radical Islamists.
The fatuous gasbag Al Gore and his supplicants in the ’scientific community’ ought to give each and every one of us reason to pause and consider what they’re up to: this is about taking control of and managing the distribution of all energy products. It’s a bald grab for power that would never succeed at the ballot box. Yet there are fools who will unlock and open their own doors and let these crooks into their very homes.
Look over these comments above mine and you will see the seeds of fascism: narcissism bent on out-greening someone else… forced adherence to nameless, intractable bureaucracies that will control where you go and how you get there, not to mention the temperature of your surroundings and your ration of energy.
This crowd plays on fears and emotions and worst-case scenarios. This is the reason the Framers created the Second Amendment.
This is evil incarnate.
March 13th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Wow …. “Evil incarnate?” Well, we can’t have that, can we??
So, I guess we can have a global society that opts to do nothing; to ignore melting glaciers, receding ice caps, loss of habitat for northern life; to write all that off as the special effects perpetrated by the propagandists. That will work much better, won’t it?
June 16th, 2009 at 4:57 am
. . what? Seriously, come to Boston or New York, London looks as clean as my apartment comparatively.