fbpx
01 / 05
Pollution in Pre-Industrial Europe

Blog Post | Environment & Pollution

Pollution in Pre-Industrial Europe

Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once described the River Thames as "a Stygian pool, reeking with ineffable and intolerable horrors."

Last week, I wrote about Jason Hickel’s romantic idea that people in the past “lived well” with little or no monetary income. I noted that prior to the Industrial Revolution, clothing was immensely expensive and uncomfortable. The cotton mills changed all that.

As a French historian noted in 1846, “Machine production…brings within the reach of the poor a world of useful objects, even luxurious and artistic objects, which they could never reach before.”

Today, I wish to turn to pollution. It is well known that industrialization helped to pollute the environment, but that does not mean that air and water were clean before factories and mills came along! Compared to today, our ancestors had to endure horrific environmental conditions.

Let’s start with air quality. In the 17th century London, Claire Tomalin observed in Samuel Pepys: The Unequalled Self, “Every household burnt coal … The smoke from their chimneys made the air dark, covering every surface with sooty grime. There were days when a cloud of smoke half a mile high and twenty miles wide could be seen over the city … Londoners spat black.”

In a similar vein, Carlo Cipolla in his book Before the Industrial Revolution: European Society and Economy 1000-1700, quotes from the diary of British writer John Evelyn, who wrote in 1661: “In London we see people walk and converse pursued and haunted by that infernal smoake. The inhabitants breathe nothing but an impure and thick mist, accompanied by a fuliginous and filthy vapour … corrupting the lungs and disordering the entire habit of their bodies.”

The streets were just as dirty. John Harrington invented the toilet in 1596, but bathrooms remained rare luxuries two hundred years later. Chamber pots continued to be emptied into streets, turning them into sewers. To make matters worse, even large towns continued to engage in husbandry well into the 18th century. As Fernand Braudel noted in The Structures of Everyday Life, “Pigs were reared in freedom in the streets. And the streets were so dirty and muddy that they had to be crossed on stilts.”

Lawrence Stone observed in The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 that “In towns in the eighteenth century, the city ditches, now often filled with stagnant water, were commonly used as latrines; butchers killed animals in their shops and threw the offal of the carcases into the streets; dead animals were left to decay and fester where they lay; latrine pits were dug close to wells, thus contaminating the water supply. Decomposing bodies of the rich in burial vaults beneath the church often stank out parson and congregation.”

A “special problem” in London, Stone wrote, was the “poor holes” or “large, deep, open pits in which were laid the bodies of the poor, side by side, row by row. Only when the pit was filled with bodies was it finally covered with earth.” As one contemporary writer, whom Stone quotes, observed, “How noisome the stench is that arises from these holes.” Furthermore, “great quantities of human excrement were cast into the streets at night … It was also dumped into on the surrounding highways and ditches so that visitors to or from the city ‘are forced to stop their noses to avoid the ill smell.’”

According to Stone, “The result of these primitive sanitary conditions was constant outbursts of bacterial stomach infections, the most fearful of all being dysentery, which swept away many victims of both sexes and of all ages within a few hours or days. Stomach disorders of one kind or another where chronic, due to poorly balanced diet among the rich, and the consumption of rotten and insufficient food among the poor.”

Then there was “the prevalence of intestinal worms,” which is “a slow, disgusting and debilitating disease that caused a vast amount of human misery and ill health … In the many poorly drained marshy areas, recurrent malarial fevers were common and debilitating diseases … [and] perhaps even more heart-breaking was the slow, inexorable, destructive power of tuberculosis.”

The situation was no better on the European mainland. In the middle of the 17th century, Queen Anne of Austria and mother of Louis XIV noted that “Paris is a horrible place and ill smelling. The streets are so mephitic that one cannot linger there because of the stench of rotting meat and fish and because of a crowd of people who urinate in the streets.”

In the 19th century, pollution remained a problem. In Inside the Victorian Home: A Portrait of Domestic Life in Victorian England, Judith Flanders noted Waldo Emerson’s observation that “no one … [in England] wore white because it was impossible to keep it clean.” According to Flanders, hair brushes looked “black after once using” and tablecloths were laid just before eating, “as otherwise dust settled from the fire and they became dingy in a matter of hours.”

In 1858, the stench from the River Thames was so bad that “the curtains on the river side of the building were soaked in lime chloride to overcome the smell”. The effort was unsuccessful, with Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once fleeing a committee room “with a mass of papers in one hand, and with his pocket handkerchief applied to his nose,” because the stench was so bad. He called the river “a Stygian pool, reeking with ineffable and intolerable horrors.”

Keep in mind that even after the Industrial Revolution had begun, much of the pollution was still non-industrial. Henry Mayhew, an English social researcher and journalist, found that the Thames contained “ingredients from breweries, gasworks, and chemical and mineral manufactories; dead dogs, cats, and kittens, fats, offal from slaughterhouses; street-pavement dirt of every variety; vegetable refuse; stable-dung; the refuse of pig-styes; night-soil; ashes; tin kettles and pans … broken stoneware, jars, pitchers, flower-pots, etc.; pieces of wood; rotten mortar and rubbish of different kinds.”

There can be no doubt that industrialisation did great damage to the environment during the second half of the 19th century. But it also created wealth that allowed advanced societies to build better sanitation facilities, and spurred the creation of an enlightened populace with a historically unprecedented concern over the environment and a willingness to pay for its stewardship through higher taxation.

Fast-forward to 2015 and the BBC reported “more than 2,000 seals have been spotted in the Thames over the past decade … along with hundreds of porpoises and dolphins and even the odd stray whale … There are now 125 species of fish in the Thames, up from almost none in the 1950s.” Similarly, average concentrations of suspended particulate matter in London rose from 390 in 1800 to a peak of 623 in 1891, before falling to 16 micrograms per cubic meters in 2016. Today, air in the capital of the United Kingdom ranks as one of the cleanest among the world’s major cities.

Contemporary evidence clearly shows that the lives of many Western Europeans before industrialisation were, at least by today’s standards, deeply unpleasant. It would be a stretch to conclude that they have “lived well.”

This first appeared in CapX.

Wall Street Journal | Housing

California Ditches Environmental Law to Tackle Housing Crisis

“California lawmakers on Monday night rolled back one of the most stringent environmental laws in the country, after Gov. Gavin Newsom muscled through the effort in a dramatic move to combat the state’s affordability crisis.

The Democratic governor—widely viewed as a 2028 presidential contender—made passage of two bills addressing an acute housing shortage a condition of his signing the 2025-2026 budget. A cornerstone of the legislation reins in the California Environmental Quality Act, which for more than a half-century has been used by opponents to block almost any kind of development project…

The California Environmental Quality Act was signed into law in 1970 by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, at a time when Republicans were at the forefront of the nation’s burgeoning green movement. President Richard Nixon also signed groundbreaking protections, including the Endangered Species Act.

CEQA, as it is known, requires state and local agencies to review environmental impacts of planned projects and to take action to avoid or lower any negative effects. Opponents of projects have used the law to delay them by years.”

From Wall Street Journal.

Good News Network | Natural Disasters

California’s First Wildfire-Resistant Neighborhood

“One of the nation’s largest homebuilders have created a community of entirely wildfire-resilient homes to help reduce homebuyers’ risks of loss if another Palisades or Dixie fire comes roaring by.

With nothing flammable on the exterior or the roofs and curated desert foliage around the gardens and lawns, the homes aren’t necessarily fireproof, but the design of the entire community was informed by identifying and eliminating the most common causes of homes catching fire.

Available now, and with some already off the market, KB Homes estimates their price at around $1 million, a price consistent with disaster-proof housing around the country.”

From Good News Network.

KVUE | Housing

Austin to Allow Some Apartments to Have Only One Staircase

“On Thursday [4/10/25], Austin City Council members approved a change to building codes that will soon allow apartments up to five stories tall to be built with only one staircase.

The change is set to begin on July 10, after a resolution to the city’s building technical codes was introduced in 2024. Councilmember José ‘Chito’ Vela said the units would include advanced sprinkler systems and protected stairwells.”

From KVUE.

Blog Post | Housing

US Housing Abundance Has Increased Dramatically

Compared to the early 1970s, we get 74 percent more square feet of housing per person, per percent of household income.

Summary: Over the past 50 years, Americans have seen a dramatic increase in housing quality and space. While housing costs appear to have risen, today’s homes offer more value per dollar. We can see this by adjusting for household size and improvements like air conditioning, garages, and extra bathrooms. We now get more housing for the same share of income.


The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) conducts consumer expenditure surveys, collecting data on a wide variety of products and services.

Over the past 50 years, the percentage of household income spent on food fell 30 percent, and spending on clothing has dropped by 64.9 percent, yet housing costs have increased by 12.1 percent. What explains this rise? At least six key differences between homes in the early 1970s and in 2023 help account for the change:

  1. Size: The average home in 1972 measured 1,634 square feet, compared to 2,614 square feet in 2023—a 60 percent increase (980 additional square feet).
  2. Household Size: Average household size declined from 3.06 persons in 1972 to 2.51 in 2023, an 18 percent decrease. We’re buying more house per person.

In 1972, the average living space per person was 534 square feet; by 2023, it had nearly doubled to 1,041.4 square feet. In terms of affordability, one percent of household income bought 23.95 square feet of housing in 1972, compared to 41.66 square feet in 2023. We’re getting 74 percent more housing per person for the same share of income.

Four other factors also help explain the difference:

  1. Air Conditioning: In 1971, only 36 percent of homes had central air; by 2023, that number had reached 99.4 percent.
  2. Garages: The share of homes with garages rose from 59.8 percent in 1971 to 97.3 percent in 2023.
  3. Bedrooms: In 1971, only 24.6 percent of homes had four or more bedrooms; in 2023, 50.2 percent did.
  4. Bathrooms: The percentage of homes with 2.5 or more bathrooms increased from 16.3 percent in 1971 to 67 percent in 2023.

After adjusting for increased square footage and smaller household size, the share of household income spent on housing falls to 14.3 percent. If we further account for improvements—such as the addition of air conditioning, garages, extra bedrooms, and bathrooms—a modest 25 percent quality adjustment brings the rate closer to 10.7 percent. In effect, we’re now spending less than half as much of our household income on basic housing compared to the early 1970s.

We also see this phenomenon clearly when comparing automobiles from the early 1970s to those of today. While both have four wheels, modern cars deliver vastly superior fuel efficiency, comfort, safety, reliability, and performance.

The real question is: how much would someone have to pay you to trade your 2023 home and 2023 car for their 1972 counterparts?

Tip of the Hat: Jeremy Horpendahl

Find more of Gale’s work at his Substack, Gale Winds.