Yes, private property. A wit in England said that if you want to protect a species, don't make a law. Put it on the menu. Is there a shortage of cows? Especially in Congress.

Elephants were being poached all over Africa for their ivory, and the governments protecting them didn't have the resources to stop the poachers and I suspect that a lot of the government agents were happy to have their palms crossed with silver--from ivory--to look the other way. But one nation, Kenya I think, gave the elephants to the tribes as their property and once the autochthones had a personal interest, the elephant population boomed.

But private action never satisfies some people. Because it's private and not coercive and doesn't have the range for self-expression by the bossy.

Another example of correlation does not imply causation. Of course pollution declined from the 1970's. We no longer have leaded gasoline, car fuel efficiency continues to improve, certain chemicals are now banned, illegal dumping is now prosecuted more, and the list goes on and on. While market factors certainly account for a small portion of these improvements (people choosing better cars from Japan), government policy and enforcement served as the primary driver (cars meeting emissions standards, mandated improvements in gasoline content, emissions controls on smokestacks, etc). Few market incentives exist to encourage firms to make these changes on their own. I also find it interesting the author of this "study" cites the improvement in Cleveland's rivers and such. That city experienced negative economic growth the past three decades. The improvements in the water quality has more to do with the reduction in economic activity. One last note, when a researcher admits his biases even before he begins gathering data it is not science.

A very predictable retort, CO, making positive information (based on real data) negative. Pollution continues to decline in the US while our population has grown significantly over the same period, total miles driven has doubled, and the economy has expanded many-fold. Government may have mandated initial steps, but industry has extended and expanded the results beyond what was required in almost every aspect. This is undeniably good news.

And I will give you your point that bringing up the Cuyahoga River in this context weakens the arguments made. It, though, is a good example of an environmental good that came about when the citizenry decided that they would not tolerate the existing conditions any longer. The public drove most of the improvements in Ohio's waterways and the government followed with regulation to help hold the gains made.

That city experienced negative economic growth the past three decades. The improvements in the water quality has more to do with the reduction in economic activity.

Is this really spurious?

Is this really spurious?

Here is a nice article from 1953 outlining the contamination taking place in Cleveland.

https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/3999/1/V53N01_014.pdf

Given that these factories are no longer in Cleveland, I would guess the river no longer has raw sewage and acid being pumped into it. To answer your question, yes it is spurious.

C.O., since this report in the 1950's Cleveland has most definately seen an increase in its urban and suburban population, so without question the amount of sewerage pumped into the river has increased many fold. Though I'm sure you meant to imply the decrease in economic activity is greater than the increase in municipal flows, so there has been a gross reduction attributable to this declining economic activity.

But has there been a decrease in the economic activity that could impact the river since the 1940's? I doubt it. According to Ohio Steel Council Figures steel production in the 40s was about 16 Million Tons per year, peaking around 20 Million tons in the late 1950. Current steel production in Ohio is about 15 Million Tons, so we are almost at levels equivalent to 1940s production, yet polution from this industry is fractional to what it was back then due to technologies that can extract profitable commodities from the waste streams and new processes that are more efficient and thus cost effective and polution reducing.

Besides, the report you cite acknowledges that it was a water quality study only. It does not identify the point sources of polution and the disposal figures it cites for the various industries come from a report that relied on voluntary reporting of only the largest know water users with no attempt to check for accuracy. Not exacly a good data point to make a statement that the economic contraction of the manufacturing sector is the primary cause of reduced polution.

The population of Cleveland in 1950 was over 915,000. The population today is 444,000. The city has lost over half of its people since the boom the city experienced in the 1950's. A Columbus Times article states that the city has lost 80% of its manufacturing jobs since 1950. The article I previously posted clearly indicates that the pollution in the river came from industrial sources (sewage and acid) and municipal (sewage). If the industrial sources of pollution no longer exist, I think most would agree pollution likely declined as a result.

If the factories moved, then there should be another factory on another river with the pollution being pumped into it, no? Perhaps this has been shipped offshore. Score one for outsourcing pollution. Hybrid cars?

I don't think it is spurious, you are actually proving that. There have been three methods of reducing pollution mentioned here.

1. Regulation.
2. Privatization and market incentives.
3. Reduction of economic output.

The Cleve appears to have demonstrated the effectiveness of option 3.

Sorry C.O., the Cleveland MSA has almost 2.2 Million people and that is slightly down from 2.4 million in 1997. Yes population in the Clevelenad City Limits is down, but not in the impact area of the River Basin on Lake Erie.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/Data/popm/pm1680.htm

ummm... they are only down 200,000 since 1970...a bit of a typo, and better for bob's case.