Using canvas bags in stores is often an easy way to save a little bit extra. Designers have begun creating high end canvas bags to exploit the environmentalist, hipster trend of using canvas bags on an everyday basis.

With midterms week finally over, I needed to unwind by indulging in a relaxing pastime. For me, of course, that is shopping for major bargains. I felt mildly guilty shopping exclusively for myself, and thus decided to do so in a way that was mutually beneficial for both my family and me. Thus, on the way home from the mall, I stopped by my local Shoprite to buy groceries. At the checkout, I waited for the total to plummet as the cashier scanned my coupons, incorporated the weekly specials, and shaved off 5 cents for every canvas bag I used. Indeed, the price dropped, but not to my standards; I noticed that my savings fell short of my goal because nothing was deducted for my bags. The cashier told me that Shoprite was no longer reimbursing customers for canvas bags. Caught off-guard and immediately upset, I tried to make sense of what I perceived to be a foolish policy change. Why would they suddenly take away this incentive for customers to use canvas bags?

Rachel Carson was wise beyond her years. Unfortunately, she faced major criticism and ridicule, particularly from her male dominated society, for what we now realize are critical contributions to the modern environmental movement.

To understand the nature of the plastic bag issue, we have to take a step back. Over the past decade, our society has become more aware of the deleterious impact of our actions on this earth. From Rachel Carson’s A Silent Spring to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, we recognize how our exploitation and wastefulness will ultimately lead to the destruction of the scarce, precious resources available to us. This obviously environmentalist ideology overlaps with that of the field of economics, which deals with the study of the efficient allocation of scarce resources. In response to this real threat, we have taken strides in becoming more conscious of our global footprint. One major trend that has grown in popularity is that of reducing our usage of plastic bags.

Fundamentals of environmentalism, economics, and psychology all come to play in trying to determine how to get people to use fewer plastic bags.

Many tactics have been implemented in order to motivate customers to use fewer plastic bags. The two types of methods fall under the carrot or stick approach. Is it better to incentivize people to do a behavior by offering a reward, or deter them by punishing such behavior? For something as innocuous as using a plastic bag, it seems more fitting to utilize the former approach. Indeed, many stores offer a few cents back for every canvas bag. The amount for each bag, though, varies. Stores do a rather complex cost benefit analysis.  How much money back would make a customer believe that it is worthwhile for him to use a canvas bag? Also, what is an acceptable loss that the store is willing to incur in order to limit the number of plastic bags used? Shoprite, as I mentioned earlier, refunded 5 cents per bag; Stop and Shop gives back 5 cents; Pathmark reduces a transaction total by a comparatively low 2 cents per bag. Not only is this tactic economical in that fewer resources are being used, but it is also psychological in trying to determine the monetary benefit that effectively impacts consumer behavior.

Many homes in California have solar panels built onto the roofs of them homes. Though expensive to install, they are becoming progressively cheaper over time. Also, using them as a source of energy results in substantially lower electrical bills; solar energy is a much cheaper energy alternative.

The stick approach is less common, but it certainly exists. In California, the Governor Jerry Brown passed a bill in late September banning the use of first time plastic bags. Additionally, a 10-cent tax per paper bag was imposed. California is notoriously liberal and advanced in environmental strides, so it is of little surprise that this state would take such a bold step. While in this context the approach may seem onerous, we see instances of the stick approach in many facets of our lives. For example, we get points on our license for speeding rather than getting a prize for abiding by the speed limit.

The carrot approach and the stick approach can both be effective, but in the appropriate situation.

Both approaches are legitimate options. Both tackle the issue of impacting consumer behavior by appealing to our psyche. The fundamental difference between them is in their respective nature. The stick approach, in short, is a fear tactic, and can ultimately be isolating. The carrot approach, in rewarding good behavior, is more benevolent. Thus, the latter approach complements Shoprite, whose aim as a major chain is to ensure that customers have a positive shopping experience. Providing an easy way to save money and be environmentally friendly will surely elevate their overall experience.

Now that there is no incentive to use canvas bags, expect to see a see a yellow in shopping carts the next time you go shopping there. I think that the only store you will be guaranteed to see canvas bags being used is Whole Foods, where environmentalists frequently flock.

By taking away the 5-cent per bag policy, Shoprite will immediately see a drastic change in consumer behavior. As I noted when Queens College repealed the $15 printing money for those who completed teacher evaluations, one cannot simply expect behavior to remain unchanged once an incentive is removed. What will happen is that people will revert back to their old ways, in this case by using plastic bags. An avid recycler, I nonetheless anticipate that my behavior will change: I will become much more lax in bringing my embarrassingly large collection of canvas bags to the store. Ideally, we want to think that customers have internalized the rewards of being environmentally friendly and will continue with the practice of using canvas bags, even without receiving anything in return. This, of course, is unrealistic, and ultimately wishful thinking. Incentives are a powerful force, but human apathy is even stronger.