I was having a discussion about pollution with a friend at work and said something about the health problems associated with it. He stated that it isn’t as polluted now as it used to be (he said “50 years ago”). When I said it was worse now, he wouldn’t believe me because you could see the pollution in the past, and it can’t possibly be more polluted now because you don’t see as much pollution. He mentioned seeing pictures showing how dirty the air used to be.
I decided that at this point, logic alone wasn’t going to help, so I need hard facts. Does anyone have data regarding different types of pollution, and how prevalent these pollutants are now vs. in the past?
Also, where can I find statistics on population levels, car ownership and the like?
For certain pollutants - for example: Lead, Mercury, DDT, Asbestos, and Radioactive isotopes (and probably most automobile exhaust pollutants), it’s much less polluted today than it was in the past. So, you need to define what type of pollution you are talking about.
Back 100-200 years ago, when large houses had a dozen or so chimneys, all belching the wastes from coal or wood fires, the amount of soot in the air was much higher than today. Especially in the poorer (downwind) parts of large towns, like the Eastend of London.
However, you need to take into account the specific types of pollution, and the problems it causes, to decide if it was ‘worse’ then or now.
I suspect that you could get into GD territory as to whether one pollutant is worse than another, which is why I am looking for statistical data, rather than value judgments.
The Clean Air Act of 1970 has in general been a success. Levels of most pollutants have gone down very substantially in the past 40 years. As the chart in the link shows, there have been drops in the levels of carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, and lead.
I grew up in New York City in the 1950s and 1960s. Subjectively speaking, pollution appeared to me to be far worse then than it is now.
Your OP seems to be predicated on the assumption that you are right and your friend wrong. As others have said, for many pollutants this is simply not the case. There are far more stringent controls on air pollution today than there were 50 years ago.
Today does not begin to compare when you look at local pollution, ie on a national scale.
In the UK we actually have some fish in some of the rivers passing through industrial towns, we do not get the old ‘pea souper’ smogs that would kill tens of thousands every year.
The controlled dumping of various wastes is very much better, sewage effluent is far better controlled, there is far less lead and other heavy metals around now than in the past, and there is very much less acid rain.
Even the damage to the ozone layer appears to be abating.
The Chesapeake Bay is cleaner today than it was at its low point ~ 1983 (pdf best chart pg. 11). It is roughly as clean today as it was about 1960 - before the Clean Water Act but also before the absolute explosion of development along the shore.
Certain cities have worked very hard to improve their rivers and such - you might want to eat a fish you caught in the Allegheny or the Monongahalia these days. This is partly, however, due to the death of manufacturing in the US and therefore the drop in blue collar jobs.
Point of comparison: When automobiles were new, one of their selling points compared to horse-drawn vehicles was that, unlike horses, cars don’t pollute. Clearly, there’s less pollution in the form of horse manure now than there once was.
Several years ago Scientific American did a report on air quality in the Los Angeles Basin over the years.
The conclusion was that the air is measurably better now than it was in the 1960s when pollution controls started coming on line.
As anybody who lives in the Greater LA basin can tell you. It was much, much worse in the 60s and 70s. It still looks ugly when the smog rolls past Ontario, but that is just cosmetic. The real poisons are at much lower levels these days.