The following article by the Associated Press discusses a unique lawsuit in California as a result of the pollution caused by railroads, including health problems suffered by residents. Therefore, I was wondering if the social-savings calculation introduced the Fogel reading and discussed in lecture should include the negative social savings railroads had on the environment.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hiD-w8PbAnEQTQS98b-RtIBQmePg?docId=5fd0ea7f5e22401a8a498784173adc71
The railroad has been blamed for health problems because the diesel exhaust contains tiny particles which can penetrate into our lungs, and causes lung disease and heart attacks. In the article, it says “Exposure to such pollution can be especially dangerous for children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly, whose immune systems may be compromised”. Since railroad has caused the pollution, I think we should definitely include the negative social savings for inventing railroads in Fogel’s hypothesis. When there was pollution, there had to be an increase in death rate during the Gilded Age. And increasing mortality could reduce the social rate of return which would reduce the social saving. From this point, the GDP/capita would not increase as much as it predicted with the railroad if we considered the pollution and the negative effects. However, if we considered about the pollution of the railroad, we should also think about the pollution that the alternative substitutes brought. Without railroads, most of the transportation would be the canals and some of the wagons or even the development of the motor vehicles. As we know, canals could bring water pollution, and vehicle exhaust could also bring air pollution. These all contribute the negative effects of canals and wagons without the railroad. Therefore, there are much more to be considered if we count for the pollution caused by railroads.
ReplyDelete