The #2 pencil principle (or #3 pencil principle) says that if something is too hard, like a #3 pencil, people won’t use it even if it cuts costs. An accounting firm in an attempt to cut costs requested that all employees’ use #3 pencils; they are harder than #2 pencils and will last 3 times longer. The employees found #3 pencils to hard to use and erase so the majority of them ended up buying their own #2 pencils. The point being if something is to hard its unlikely people will do it. Check http://www.icms.net/news-23.htm for a version of the story.
Keeping this in mind many environmental concerns and solutions are requested in ways that are reminiscent of the #3 pencil thus lessening the likelihood that the people will adapt the solutions.
A few examples
CFLs are a good example of a #2 pencil would be the use of CFLs in household lights. For the average family they are no more difficult to use than a standard light bulb. The push for quick and across the board adoption of CFLs could easily push them toward a number #3 since most families have a few unused standard light bulbs in their house which they don’t want to throwaway. The cost is also a hurdle for many families so it is good to see that the cost is coming down on the bulbs.
Non-community recycling is a #3 issue. When consumers are given a choice throwing recyclables away with the trash at the curb or driving them to a recycling station it is unlikely that many consumers will store their recyclables then periodically drive them somewhere to have recycled. This issue easily rates a #3 since it is an involved process that is time consuming and dirty. A much better choice would be to aid communities in starting curbside recycling pick up. This would mean that consumers would receive three containers, 1 for trash, 1 for glass, 1 for paper. They would separate their trash, paper and glass and bring the containers to the curb for pickup on the same day. While this doesn’t eliminates all the work it eliminates all most and makes the task much easier.
Many issues dealing with the environment have to do with up front costs which force many into a #3 situation. For example many people can’t afford to pay 8-10 thousand dollars extra to buy a hybrid car or a new one to replace the clunker they have now. The same holds true for many housing upgrades extra insulation, new windows and doors, a tank-less water heater and solar panels cost money most families don’t have. This fact can’t be changed. The government currently offers rebates on energy star appliances (some of them) but that doesn’t offset the upfront costs.
If the government decides to mandate energy efficiency the solutions that fit the #2 pencil model are necessary to keep people on board and keep costs down. Keeping this in mind it can be just as good to reduce in small ways across the board as it is to target certain aspects in large ways. If everyone turned off their computers at the end of the day that is just as good as a few rich people going with solar power. The first option shouldn’t require government subsides to enact the second would so the benefit grows because energy use is down and costs are down.
So what is the solution?
1) Offer instant rebates on energy efficient items and upgrades.
2) Update building standards to require use of new efficient techniques and materials.
3) Partner with local charity air-conditioner drives to upgrade insulation in the houses which receive air-conditioners.
4) Request that local power companies provide energy upgrade budgeting. By this I mean if I spend an extra $500 on an energy star air conditioner (compared to the standard model) and an extra $300 on new energy efficient windows I should be able to roll the $800 into my electric bill (or gas) and pay $33 more on my bill for two years. It would be similar to a loan but I wouldn’t be paying high interest since the upgrades benefit both parites.
-K
