I was confronted with an interesting situation when I went to pay my T-mobile bill online the other day: either I "go green" with their paperless billing, or pay $1.50 for privilege of receiving a paper bill each month. The choice was a no-brainer.
I "chose" to go green...
If it hadn't been for the fact it would have cost me an extra $18 a year, I probably wouldn't have made the switch. I think most will agree that any reluctance to switching over to more eco-friendly options is usually due to the fact that green usually costs more--in both time and money:
Still--when money is tight, it can be hard to make the right ecological choice.
In the past, green inducements were small financial incentives like getting three cents for each bag you brought to the grocery store or maybe five cents for recycling a soda can. But the new message seems to be, "Want to keep wasting resources? Go right ahead, but it'll cost ya..." It's an interesting technique, but I wonder if instead of charging for paper bills, T-mobile would have gotten more takers if they had offered a $1.50 rebate each month for those who signed up for paperless billing...
Which works bettter: Charging people for being eco-sinners or rewarding them for being eco-saints?
Vote in the poll and let us know your opinion in the comments.
Comments