D4.6.9-12: Understanding Problems Across Places and Times Through Many Lenses

Overview

Lesson Procedure

80-80 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction30 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice15 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "A city bans a cheap fuel because its smoke is unhealthy. A year later, most people are still burning it. List three different explanations, each from a different field of study. Then write one explanation that needs two fields at once."

   Collect explanations and label each with its field: people cannot afford the cleaner fuel (economics), nobody enforces the ban (law and civics), people do not believe the smoke harms them (psychology), the cleaner fuel is not available nearby (geography). Then take the combined explanation, for example "the fine is smaller than the money saved by breaking the rule", and point out that it needs both law and economics. Tell students that this is an interdisciplinary lens, and that the problem they are about to study has been tried in many places over seven hundred years.

2. Direct Instruction30 minutes

   Part 1: The question and the sources. The compelling question is "Why was coal smoke so hard to clear from great cities, and what helped?" Smoke is the vehicle for the skill. Key terms: bituminous or soft coal contains much volatile matter, gases that make smoke unless burned with enough air; abatement means reducing a nuisance; an ordinance is a city law; sea coal was the medieval English name for mineral coal; artificers were craftsmen; a Commission of Oyer and Terminer was a royal court sent to "hear and determine" cases; firemen in these sources are the workers who stoked boilers; a stationary boiler is a fixed steam plant. "Held in abeyance" means suspended. Sources 4 and 5 are by two British scientists; the British sources quote acts of Parliament.

   Source Information: who wrote each source, when, and from what position (from the bylines and title pages)

   Source	Author and position	Date	Instance and level
   1	John O'Connor, Jr., economist, University of Pittsburgh smoke staff, and secretary of the Smoke and Dust Abatement League	1913	Pittsburgh, 1884-1892: local
   2	Frederick Law Olmsted, Harlan Page Kelsey and the American Civic Association, a reform group	1908 (2nd ed. 1911)	American and Canadian cities: regional
   3	Osborn Monnett, U.S. Bureau of Mines (a federal agency)	1923	The United States after the World War: national
   4	Napier Shaw and John Switzer Owens, British scientists	1925	England, 1257-1891: global, over time
   5	Shaw and Owens, as above	1925	British law and manufacturers in the 1920s: global

   1When the story is told for Pittsburgh it is told for most of the cities of the country, for Pittsburgh, with its sobriquet, “The Smoky City,” has stood as the shining example of the Smoke Nuisance. Because of its wonderful industrial development and because of the black smoke which seemed to follow, Pittsburgh has done more than any other city on the globe to make smoke and prosperity synonymous in the minds of a great host of people who are seemingly indifferent to the truth of the whole problem.

   [...]

   2Pittsburgh might never have had any smoke abatement agitation if it had not come to pass that the city was practically freed from smoke by the discovery of natural gas and its utilization as a fuel. In a report made to the Engineers’ Society of Western Pennsylvania in May, 1884, there was this statement: “Smoke and smoked ceilings of Pittsburgh may become things of the past, yet if sold at the price now charged, i. e., 50c per thousand feet, it (natural gas) is much more costly than coal.” At the time of the report, natural gas was being used as a fuel in the Union Iron Mills and the Black Diamond Steel Works. It was only a short time until natural gas became cheaper than coal and came for the time being to supplant it as a fuel.

   [...]

   3In 1884 it is estimated that Pittsburgh was using annually 3,000,000 tons of bituminous coal. With the introduction of natural gas this fell off to less than 1,000,000 tons. The regime of natural gas was brief. About 1890 the coal consumption again began to move upward and by 1895 King Coal had resumed his throne.

   [...]

   4But Pittsburgh knew what a clean city was like. It had actually been experienced. It was only natural then that the people protested when the smoke began to increase. [...] A committee from the health association was present at the meeting of the Engineers’ society in February of 1892 when William Metcalf, referred to above, read a paper which was a partial defense of smoke. In the discussion that followed this paper one of the speakers said: “We are going back to smoke. We had four or five years of wonderful cleanliness in Pittsburgh, and we have all had a taste of knowing what it is to be clean.” At the March meeting of the Engineers’ society, the Ladies’ Health Association presented its side of the story.

   [...]

   5The ordinance of March, 1892, provided that after September 1, 1892, it should be unlawful for any chimney or smoke stack used in connection with a stationary boiler to allow, suffer or permit smoke from bituminous coal to be emitted or escape therefrom, within a certain district. This district was bounded by Miltenberger, Dinwiddie, Devilliers and Thirty-third streets on the west and the city line on the east. Its northern and southern boundaries were irregular, being arranged according to the newspaper “so as not to affect a number of iron works, steel works, oil refineries and other industries for which successful smoke consuming devices have not yet been provided.” It will be observed that this ordinance excepted the business section of the city, bounded by Grant street, the Tenth street bridge and the two rivers. The ordinance was chiefly notable for its exceptions.

   1London, however, is at last realizing the frightful price its people are paying in sickness, disease, death and a yearly economic loss, estimated at £4,000,000, for such so-called evidences of “material prosperity,” and is with increasing rapidity and effectiveness doing away with this, perhaps its greatest of all public nuisances. Our American cities, too, are at last awakening, and are seeing the new light of a brighter, clearer, smokeless day. Where once belching chimneys, soot-laden air, clanging noises and landscape blighted with flaming billboards and ten thousand intruding poles and wires were considered signs of municipal “push,” prosperity and business health, such evidences are now rightly more often termed municipal ignorance, crime, and business gangrene.

   [...]

   2The abolition of smoke, on the other hand, affects the whole community, since the production of smoke is claimed, especially by the careless or the uninformed, to be completely bound up with the material and industrial welfare of a city. The evil is one that grows with the growth of the community, and its abatement calls for a large, comprehensive and tactful treatment, with thorough coöperation between the different parties to the problem. Education of the public, the factory owners and the firemen to the bad economy and the wrong of smoke emission is of great importance.

   3The smoke nuisance can be abated either by right stoking and furnaces insuring proper combustion of smoky fuels, or by substituting a smokeless fuel. The latter, especially in large steam plants, may not be possible from an economical standpoint, when the smoky fuel is materially cheaper than the smokeless fuel. The other remedy—proper combustion—is a matter of taking the pains to burn the coal or other material properly, and it can be substantially accomplished wherever people realize that the result is worth the trouble necessary to secure it. The first step in abating smoke is to pass a law or an ordinance, making the emission of black or dark gray smoke an unlawful act, punishable by fine. Such regulations are already in force in New York, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Toronto, Toledo, Indianapolis, Detroit, the District of Columbia, and numerous other cities. The second step is to get the law enforced. This may be done by a smoke-abatement department, or, as in some cities, by the health department. In any case, the work should be done under the direction of smoke inspectors, or officers delegated for the purpose, who understand boilers and their construction, and whose chief duty is to see that the smoke is abated. It is purely a question of engineering, and any manufacturer or others may readily obtain expert aid that will enable him to comply with the law.

   1The increase of the smoke nuisance in the United States has followed directly the progress of industrial development. When towns were small and a large proportion of the population lived in the country, the smoke nuisance was unknown. As people concentrated in the cities, there followed a tremendous increase in the utilization of power and heat, and coal became the only feasible fuel where wood had largely sufficed before. In fact, one of the basic raw materials of our civilization to-day is coal. Five-sixths of that mined in the United States is bituminous or soft coal containing a large proportion of volatile matter which makes smoke if not properly burned. [...] Unless enough oxygen is supplied to burn completely the hydrocarbons composing the volatile matter, these hydrocarbons condense as soot which is precipitated on heating surfaces, and as smoke which escapes into the surrounding atmosphere.

   2The deposit of soot on the heating surface of boilers and furnaces causes a serious economic loss by interfering with the efficient transmission of heat from the fire to the boiler or heater. In addition, the smoke that escapes into the atmosphere in smoke-ridden communities causes a considerable per capita loss to citizens through the damage to fabrics and merchandise, and also by the necessary extra cleaning and repairs.

   3As smoke causes so much loss and annoyance, it is not surprising that efforts have been made to abate the nuisance. Some 50 or 60 cities in this country already have smoke ordinances. [...]

   4The campaign was suspended during the World War, when most of the smoke ordinances throughout the country were held in abeyance with the intent of allowing industries to operate unrestrictedly during the time when maximum production was necessary.

   5With the return of normal conditions there has been renewed interest in smoke abatement, and many cities have shown a determination to take up this matter seriously and work out a solution. Efforts in the past have been more or less spasmodic, but the need for smoke abatement has increased with industrial activity, until in some districts it is becoming one of the most important of civic questions.

   6The broad assertion can be confidently made that any operation requiring fuel can be conducted without objectionable smoke, and yet use bituminous coal in some form.

   7If smoke abatement were merely an engineering problem it would present no difficulty. Experience has shown, however, that the problem is not so much an engineering as a psychological one. The attitude of the public seems to be more important than the technical questions involved. Communities get just as much law enforcement as they desire. Until the public is thoroughly roused, demands smoke abatement, and shows continued interest in it, no permanent improvement is possible. Thus the part played by civic organizations and other bodies interested in bettering conditions is of high importance. Smoke abatement is not a matter that can be settled overnight and then left to take care of itself without attention, but is something that must be watched year in and year out if high standards are to be maintained.

   [...]

   8Many organizations assist in working out an educational campaign. Chambers of commerce and other business organizations can usually influence the large steam users and industries in general; women’s clubs can help with the domestic aspects of the problem; school centers can give lectures and general educational programs; and the Boy Scouts can distribute information in house to house campaigns.

   1As soon as the use of coal became at all general the smoke nuisance made itself felt, for it is recorded in the annals of Dunstable that in the year 1257 Eleanor, Queen of Henry III., was obliged to leave the town of Nottingham, where she had been sent to stay during the King's absence in Wales, and removed to Tutbury Castle instead, owing to the smoke of the sea coals.

   2In London it is recorded that in the year 1273 sea coal was prohibited from being used as being "prejudicial to human health," and even the smiths were obliged to burn wood. Towards the end of the reign of Edward I. the use of coal in London had increased to a great extent. In spite of efforts to check its use, brewers, dyers and others who used much fuel had commenced to burn coal instead of wood and charcoal; the nobles, prelates and others going to London to attend Parliament were greatly annoyed by the increasing smoke, and took the lead in getting up demonstrations against the obnoxious fuel; they were joined by a great body of the populace. In consequence of the agitation, a Royal proclamation was issued in 1306 prohibiting artificers from using sea coal in their furnaces. Little notice seems to have been taken of this prohibition, and complaints still continued, so that it was decided to have recourse to stronger measures in order to put an end to the use of coal. In 1307 a Commission of Oyer and Terminer was appointed with instructions — "to inquire of all such who burnt sea coal in the city, or parts adjoining, and to punish them for the first offence with great fines and ransoms, and upon the second offence to demolish their furnaces." It is recorded that one man who disobeyed the King's command was tried, condemned to death, and executed for burning sea coal in London.

   [...]

   3Coming now to later years, we have an Act passed in 1853 to abate the smoke nuisance from shafts and steamers above London Bridge. In 1858 another Act came into operation, applying to steamers below London Bridge and to potteries and glasshouses, previously exempted. Still later we have the Public Health Act of 1875, which contains the statutory law as to smoke emission throughout England, except in London and a few provincial cities having local Acts. In London smoke emission is dealt with by the Public Health Act (London), 1891. Thus we see that throughout practically the whole history of coal as a fuel the smoke given off has been a source of continual trouble.

   1An illustration of the difficulty of avoiding all smoke is provided by the large electric generating stations, where unforeseen variations of load occur, such as the increase due to a London fog, with its accompanying demand for artificial light. In such a case it may be necessary to fire fresh boilers very rapidly, and there is no known furnace which will admit of the smokeless combustion of bituminous coal until the temperature of the combustion chamber has attained a sufficient height. Even in steady working it is practically impossible to avoid all smoke, and a faint brown smoke is regarded as indicating more efficient working of boiler furnaces than none at all. The emission of some smoke may, therefore, be regarded as inevitable.

   2The present position, therefore, is this. We know that dense smoke is unnecessary, and that entire absence of smoke is at the present time impossible of attainment, but we have not yet settled what should be allowed as a fair and reasonable amount of smoke, having regard to the improved methods of combustion which are now at the disposal of manufacturers.

   3The Public Health Act of 1875 supplies the present standard by which smoke is judged throughout the country, except in the case of a few important cities possessing special powers on the subject. In this Act it is stated that: " Any chimney not being the chimney of a private dwelling-house sending forth black smoke in such quantity as to be a nuisance shall be deemed to be a nuisance liable to be dealt with summarily under the Act." Here, then, we have the present standard; not only must the smoke be black, but it must be a nuisance as well.

   [...]

   4Manufacturers might then use the best methods of combustion and the most suitable appliances. The loss to the manufacturer in soot, estimated as a percentage of his fuel bill, is probably not more than about ¼ to 1 per cent., and this is not great enough to prompt much effort to save it. On the other hand, the loss to the public due to the injuries inflicted by smoke is certainly many times greater; hence it is more to the interest of the public than of the manufacturer that smoke should be reduced.

   [...]

   5One difficulty which has always existed is that of dealing with large and small fuel consumers by means of a single standard, and this has militated against the establishment of a more rational standard than that laid down in the Public Health Act. Clearly we cannot limit a large manufacturer to the emission of the same total quantity of soot as a small one. His furnaces might be better designed and combustion more perfect than in the case of the smaller consumer, but the total quantity of soot emitted might be much greater. Such a limitation would, therefore, work unfairly against the large fuel consumer.

   How to cite. The "[...]" lines mark cuts and are not numbered. Source 1 has paragraphs 1-5, Source 2 has 1-3, Source 3 has 1-8, Source 4 has 1-3, and Source 5 has 1-5.

   Part 2: Model the analysis. Work through the examples with Diagram 1 and the timeline (Diagram 2). Each example names its lens, the instance and the part of the standard it serves.

   • Causes in a local instance: an economics and history lens (Source 1, Pittsburgh)

     O'Connor reports that Pittsburgh burned about "3,000,000 tons of bituminous coal" a year in 1884, that natural gas cut this to "less than 1,000,000 tons", and that "by 1895 King Coal had resumed his throne" (Source 1, paragraph 3). What does this suggest about the cause of the smoke?

     Result: The smoke rose and fell with the choice of fuel, and the fuel followed price: natural gas spread only when it "became cheaper than coal" (paragraph 2). Through economics and history together, a main cause was that the smoky fuel was usually the cheap one. Matrix box: Pittsburgh, causes.

   • Causes at the national level: chemistry and geography combined (Source 3)

     Monnett writes that "Five-sixths" of the coal mined in the United States "is bituminous or soft coal containing a large proportion of volatile matter which makes smoke if not properly burned" (Source 3, paragraph 1). Why does this make the problem national rather than local?

     Result: The chemistry explains how smoke forms: without enough oxygen, the volatile matter condenses as soot and smoke. Geography and economics explain why it was everywhere: the coal most American cities could get was the smoky kind, and smoke grew as "people concentrated in the cities" (paragraph 1). Matrix box: United States, characteristics and causes.

   • An instance over time: law and history (Source 4, London)

     Shaw and Owens describe a ban on sea coal in 1273, a royal proclamation in 1306, and a commission in 1307 told to fine offenders and "upon the second offence to demolish their furnaces" (Source 4, paragraph 2). What challenge does this sequence show?

     Result: Each step was stronger because the step before was not obeyed: "Little notice seems to have been taken of this prohibition". A ban alone did not change behavior while craftsmen still found coal useful. Paragraph 3 then lists acts of 1853, 1858, 1875 and 1891, so the problem came back for centuries. Matrix box: London, challenges.

   • Two interpretations of the same problem: engineering versus psychology (Sources 2 and 3)

     The American Civic Association's pamphlet (1908; second edition 1911) says that smoke abatement "is purely a question of engineering" (Source 2, paragraph 3). In 1923 Monnett wrote that "the problem is not so much an engineering as a psychological one" (Source 3, paragraph 7). How should an analyst use the disagreement?

     Result: Do not pick a winner by date. Each lens explains part of the problem: engineering shows that smokeless burning was possible, and psychology and civics explain why it did not happen, since "Communities get just as much law enforcement as they desire" (paragraph 7). An interdisciplinary reading treats public attitude as part of the cause. Matrix box: United States, challenges and opportunities.

   • Who bears the cost: law and economics combined (Source 5, Britain)

     Shaw and Owens estimate that the manufacturer's loss in soot "is probably not more than about ¼ to 1 per cent." of the fuel bill, while "the loss to the public due to the injuries inflicted by smoke is certainly many times greater" (Source 5, paragraph 4). What challenge does this create for reformers?

     Result: The firm that makes the smoke pays only a small share of its cost, so it has little reason to stop; the people who pay most do not control the chimneys. A cost that falls on people outside the deal is what economists call an externality. Law is the tool that can shift the cost back: with a proper legal standard, the authors argue, "Manufacturers might then use the best methods of combustion" (paragraph 4). Matrix box: Britain, challenges.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Pairs read Source 6, four analyses written by invented students. Tell students before they read that two of the four are deliberately weak. For each, pairs name the lens or lenses, check every claim against Sources 1-5, and rewrite the weak ones.

   1Priya: Read through economics and history together, Pittsburgh's clean years were caused by a change in prices, not a change in values. Natural gas "became cheaper than coal", and coal use fell; when the gas era was "brief", coal returned (Source 1). Reformers in both places faced the same challenge: a rule asked people to give up the cheapest fuel. London's ban of 1306 (Source 4) offered no cheaper fuel, which may be one reason "little notice" was taken of it.

   2Marcus: The sources prove that smoke was simply an engineering problem. Source 2 says, "It is purely a question of engineering." Cities that failed to end smoke just did not hire good engineers, so the only real challenge was technical.

   3Elena: Through a combined lens of law and economics, the hardest challenge was writing a fair rule. Shaw and Owens say no one had "settled what should be allowed as a fair and reasonable amount of smoke" (Source 5), and that one limit on total soot would "work unfairly against the large fuel consumer". A rule that is unfair to some users is harder to pass and to enforce, so the measurement problem was also a political one.

   4Dev: People in medieval London were foolish to keep burning coal after the king banned it. By the 1920s, modern cities had solved the problem with ordinances, as Source 3 shows when it says 50 or 60 cities had them.

   5Teacher's note printed with the samples: two of these four analyses are deliberately weak. Decide which two, and why.

   Teacher key (discussion points). Priya (paragraph 1) is strong: she combines economics and history, quotes Source 1 accurately, and offers a cautious comparison ("may be one reason"). Marcus (paragraph 2) is weak: he treats one source's claim as proof and ignores Source 3, paragraph 7, which argues the opposite, and Source 5, which says some smoke could not be avoided. Elena (paragraph 3) is strong: her law-and-economics lens connects a measurement problem to a political one. Dev (paragraph 4) is weak: it judges medieval people by later standards without evidence, and having ordinances is not the same as solving the problem; Source 3 still calls smoke "one of the most important of civic questions" in some districts (paragraph 5).

4. Independent Practice15 minutes

   Each student completes the Instance Comparison Matrix for at least three instances and writes one paragraph answering the compelling question. The paragraph must compare two instances from different places or times, use one interdisciplinary lens and name it, and identify one challenge and one opportunity, citing sources by paragraph.

5. Closure10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Name one cause of city smoke that you could only see by comparing two instances, and say which two."

   Teacher note on the sources: Sources 1 and 2 were written by smoke-abatement advocates, and their scorn for people who linked smoke with "prosperity" should be read as a position, not a finding; Source 5 gives the manufacturers' difficulties more weight. The voices of the boiler firemen, mill workers and residents of the smokiest districts appear only secondhand. Shaw and Owens report that a man was executed for burning sea coal under Edward I; they introduce it with "It is recorded", and students should treat it as a reported claim whose original record they have not seen. Source 2's phrase "municipal ignorance, crime, and business gangrene" is reform-group advocacy language of 1908-1911.

   Quiz passage. Questions 1-5, 15-17, 19 and 20 use Source 7, an invented scenario about a valley town (paragraphs 1-5).

   1Wenden Basin is an invented town of 14,000 people in a narrow mountain valley. In winter, about 40 percent of its homes are heated mainly by wood stoves. On cold, still nights, a layer of warm air sits on top of the colder air in the valley, a pattern called an inversion, and the smoke cannot rise out of the basin.

   2The county counts the days each winter when smoke at its monitor reaches the warning level. Over the last four winters the counts were 11, 18, 14 and 22 days. The town clinic reports more visits for breathing trouble on those days.

   3Wenden Basin belongs to a three-county air district. Two other valley towns in the district report the same winter pattern, and the district has the power to set rules for stoves sold after next year. A report from an international health office (invented) says that in many countries, families burn wood or other solid fuels indoors for cooking and heat, and that smoke from such fires harms health in homes as well as outdoors.

   4A new low-smoke stove costs about $3,000 to buy and install. The district offers a $1,000 rebate to each household that replaces an old stove. Many of the homes that burn wood belong to retired people and to families who gather their own firewood because it costs them almost nothing.

   5Residents disagree. Joan Merrill, who is retired, says she cannot afford a new stove even with the rebate and has burned wood safely for forty years. Carlos Vega, who owns a stove shop, says a rule would bring him business but should not force anyone out of their home. A nurse at the clinic wants burning stopped on warning-level days. A teacher suggests that the high school's science classes keep their own smoke readings.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which detail from Source 7 shows the Wenden Basin smoke problem at the regional level?

   AAbout 40 percent of homes heat mainly with wood BAn international office reports harm from indoor smoke COther valley towns in the district see it too DA new low-smoke stove costs about $3,000 to install

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which lens best explains why the smoke is worst on cold, still nights (Source 7, paragraph 1)?

   AGeography of land use BAtmospheric science CHousehold economics DLocal history

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   A new stove costs about $3,000, the rebate is $1,000, and many wood-burning households are retired people or families who gather free firewood (Source 7, paragraph 4). Which interdisciplinary reading fits this challenge?

   ALaw and economics: a rule hits poorer households hardest BChemistry and physics: no stove of any kind can cut wood smoke CHistory and geography: valley towns never had smoke before now DPsychology and art: residents dislike how the new stoves look

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What share of a new stove's $3,000 cost does the $1,000 rebate cover?

   A25% B33% C50% D67%

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Suppose the air district wrote a smoke rule for businesses and left every home out. Which earlier rule in Sources 1-5 would it most resemble?

   APittsburgh's years of natural gas in the 1880s BLondon's royal proclamation of 1306 CThe wartime suspension of U.S. ordinances DBritain's Public Health Act of 1875

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Pittsburgh's 1892 district was drawn "so as not to affect a number of iron works, steel works, oil refineries and other industries for which successful smoke consuming devices have not yet been provided" (Source 1, paragraph 5). Which reading best explains the boundary?

   AEngineering and law: it left out plants with no proven fix BGeography alone: those plants all stood outside the city limits CPsychology alone: the plant owners did not mind breathing smoke DChemistry alone: those plants burned no bituminous coal at all

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   O'Connor says Pittsburgh did more than any other city "to make smoke and prosperity synonymous in the minds of a great host of people" (Source 1, paragraph 1). Which lens is he using?

   AChemistry: how coal smoke forms in a fire BGeography: where the mills of the city stood CPsychology: what people believed DLaw: what the 1892 ordinance required

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Monnett writes that during the World War most smoke ordinances "were held in abeyance" so that industries could reach "maximum production" (Source 3, paragraph 4). What does this show about the problem over time?

   AThe war ended the smoke problem for good BNo city had passed an ordinance before the war CIndustries asked for stricter rules in wartime DRules gave way when another goal came first

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Source 3 says "any operation requiring fuel can be conducted without objectionable smoke" (paragraph 6). Source 5 says "The emission of some smoke may, therefore, be regarded as inevitable" (paragraph 1). How do the two claims relate?

   AThey clash, so one of the two must be wrong BBoth can hold: some smoke is not objectionable CSource 5 is older, so its claim can be set aside DBoth say that every bit of smoke can be stopped

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Source 2 says a smokeless fuel "may not be possible from an economical standpoint, when the smoky fuel is materially cheaper than the smokeless fuel" (paragraph 3). Which challenge does this name?

    ANo smokeless fuel had yet been discovered BLarge steam plants were not allowed to buy coal CCleaner fuel can cost more than smoky fuel DFiremen refused to learn new ways of firing

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    According to Shaw and Owens, who "took the lead in getting up demonstrations against the obnoxious fuel" around 1306 (Source 4, paragraph 2)?

    ABrewers and dyers who had begun burning coal BSmiths who had been made to burn wood instead CThe queen who left Nottingham because of smoke DNobles and prelates in London for Parliament

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Why do Shaw and Owens think one limit on the total soot from each chimney would be unfair (Source 5, paragraph 5)?

    AA large plant could burn well yet emit more soot BSmall plants always burn coal better than large ones do CSoot cannot be measured at all in the 1920s DLarge plants made no soot under the Act of 1875

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Monnett lists chambers of commerce, women's clubs, school centers and Boy Scouts as helpers (Source 3, paragraph 8). What opportunity does this show?

    AOnly business groups could change the smoke problem BDifferent groups could reach different fuel users CThe Bureau of Mines would enforce the city ordinances DSchools would replace the city's smoke inspectors

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which statement best compares London in 1306-1307 (Source 4) with the United States in 1917-1923 (Source 3)?

    AIn both, rules mattered only when obeyed or enforced BIn both, the smoke problem ended once a law was finally passed CIn both, craftsmen were the only group that burned any coal DIn both, the national government had no rules about smoke

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Using Source 7, name one cause of the smoke problem (not a characteristic) at each level, local, regional and global, and the lens behind each cause.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    The warning-day counts for the last four winters were 11, 18, 14 and 22 (Source 7, paragraph 2). Find the mean, describe the pattern, and explain why a team should not judge a new rule by one winter's count alone.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Compare Wenden Basin with Pittsburgh's natural gas years (Source 1, paragraphs 2-3). What does the Pittsburgh instance suggest about the rebate, and what is different about Wenden Basin?

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Pittsburgh's coal use fell from about 3,000,000 tons a year to "less than 1,000,000 tons" when natural gas spread (Source 1, paragraph 3). By at least what percent did coal use fall? What does the size of the drop suggest?

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    In Source 7, Joan Merrill, Carlos Vega and the clinic nurse see the problem differently. State each view fairly, and explain one challenge their disagreement creates for the people trying to address the problem.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Explain one opportunity open to the people trying to address smoke in Wenden Basin that was not open to London in 1306 (Source 4), and one challenge both places share.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D4.6.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.