Balancing Modernization and Environment: Environmental Reflections from Horse Manure to Car Exhaust

Summary：This article explores the balance between modernization and environmental protection, emphasizing how historical perspectives can inform current challenges. It discusses the shift from horse-drawn carriages, which caused severe pollution through manure, to modern cars, which emit exhaust. The article highlights that while modern life has its environmental issues, it has also improved from the past in many ways. Using Coase's theorem, the article argues that pollution problems should be seen as a competition for scarce resources, requiring a balanced approach. Examples from early 20th-century New York, where pigs roamed Central Park and food was wrapped in lead-contaminated newspaper, to Yellowstone Park's wolf reintroduction, illustrate the need for practical, balanced solutions to environmental issues.

People living in big cities today are often troubled by smog, a significant source of which is car exhaust. Modern life has damaged the environment, a situation that didn't occur in the past when there were no cars. You might think that the air was much better back then because there were no car emissions, and therefore, the air was fresh.

It's true that there were no car emissions back then, but do you know what the main means of transportation was? It was horse-drawn carriages. What byproducts do horses produce? Manure. What's so special about horse manure?

In the early 20th century, there were over three million horses in the United States, with tens of thousands in New York City alone. Each horse produced dozens of pounds of manure daily, which accumulated on the streets. When the sun dried it out, it turned into dried manure, which was then crushed by carriage wheels into powder. This powder would be blown into the air, corroding your skin, clothes, and eyes.

Would you feel fortunate that this manure was "organic"? Certainly not; it was a frightening form of pollution. Horses also caused other forms of pollution, such as the noise from iron horseshoes striking cobblestones, horses dying from exhaustion on the streets with no one to remove them, and runaway horses causing severe traffic accidents.

We've forgotten all of this. When cars were first invented, many people cheered because we could finally escape the pollution of horse manure. So, our lives are actually improving; we've just forgotten how bad things used to be.

Back then, Central Park was not filled with swans but with pigs, which were kept to eat garbage, contributing slightly to environmental protection. However, the pigs themselves caused significant disturbances. People and pigs living together was the scene in early 20th-century New York.

There's a book titled "The Good Old Days, They Were Terrible," which details how every aspect of life was awful in the early 20th century.

I often hear my grandfather talk about how food was wrapped in newspapers when he was a child. What's on newspapers? Ink. Ink contains lead, which is extremely harmful to health. But back then, people had no such awareness. In fact, modern life today is greener, more environmentally friendly, and healthier.

This is the basic implication of Coase's theorem: We must view pollution problems with a balanced perspective. It's not about one party polluting another but about multiple parties competing for scarce resources, and we need to find a balance.

Let me give another example about Yellowstone Park. Ecologists found that the ecosystem in Yellowstone Park was missing a crucial link—wolves. The park needed to reintroduce wolves, but how many wolves would be appropriate?

If you asked mainstream economists, they might create a mathematical model to determine the optimal number of wolves. However, real-life problems aren't solved this way, as different people have different answers about the number of wolves in Yellowstone Park.

For instance, those raising livestock in Yellowstone Park would want the wolf population to be zero, as they don't want any wolves at all.

Hunters in the park would have different opinions based on their targets. If they hunt wolves, they want as many wolves as possible. But if they hunt other animals, such as rabbits or deer, they would prefer the wolf population to be zero.

If you asked park administrators, they might say the more wolves, the better, as more wolves would mean more funding. Environmentalists might also think more wolves are better for a more primitive environment.

This led to a "wolf war," with everyone arguing over the number of wolves to introduce. What was the solution?

They found a solution through Coase's theorem. If livestock owners could prove their animals were killed by wolves, the wolf advocates would have to compensate them accordingly.

With this cost in mind, wolf advocates understood that raising wolves came at a price, so they had to control the wolf population within a reasonable range. This cost is often referred to as the "Coasian payment," emphasizing that balance is the most important factor.