THE GLASS HOUSE
There is a well known phenomena in sociology known as the dynamics of rising expectations: the greater your income, the more things you believe to need in order to live a decent life. (This typically ties the middle class into a much less advantageous relationship to increased income; less things can be bought because of perceived higher standards required of those commodities obtained visa-viz the lower classes.) Whereas previously items such as television and cars were seen as luxury items in history, now they are commonly perceived to be essential to a 'normal life' in the United States. One question that could be raised is, to what degree have these dynamics led to the environmental crises, given that the US as a whole is one of the worst global polluters? Probably a great deal. However, we might ask a second question: is it reversible? While these technologies were genuinely only alternatives during the honeymoon period when were first introduced, they gradually became necessary to daily life. For example, Herbert Hoover once suggested that all the lights in the US be turned off to commemorate the 4th of July, but was told that he could not as many important facilities now required electricity, such as hospitals. We may raise the issue about many other technologies, as they have become embedded into the fabric of daily life, to the point that they have shaped the entire modern urban structure. Cities built during the 20th century are much more spread out than those built in a time when walking was the principal means of transportation; blame it on the car and its supporting infrastructure of tar roads and gasoline stations. Yet the most important question is the following: what are the implications for environmental policy? If it is true that luxury technologies are no longer optional, then does it mean that the US will not be able to drastically reduce its emissions? That is certainly a most frightful idea that would shatter all claims of drawing back the tide.