In extreme times, moderation can be revolutionary

I have to admit I am baffled by the logic of these campaigns. It seemed like a good ploy years ago, when competition was fierce for the custom of fewer drivers and when stations had nothing but fuel to sell. But these days the number of vehicles has skyrocketed and fuel stations have other magnets like convenience stores, clean toilets and coffee shops. Truck drivers now fill up at assigned stations, and mostly with alternative fuels like natural gas. Meanwhile most car owners use regular stations located near their home or office. Neither tends to chase prizes in return for fuel.
But not everyone shares my view. Shell recently launched a lucky draw with an iPhone6 as top prize. Queuing at the pump the other night I waited more than 10 minutes as the driver in front told the attendant to add more fuel to his initial order then sat filling in lucky-draw coupons. I realised he’d ordered the top-up to secure an extra coupon. Shell operates hundreds of fewer stations than PTT, so the prizes are an important route to much-needed customer loyalty.What is less understandable is that PTT's Cafe Amazon  seems eager to play the same game, offering a lucky draw with prizes worth a total Bt12 million. More customers to Amazon mean more customers to PTT, the largest operator in the retail-oil business.

Unlike Shell, PTT should not launch any campaign itself to draw traffic to its fuel stations. Forty nine per cent privately owned and 51 per cent state owned, PTT differs from Shell. It wears another hat – that of an authority responsible for helping the nation curb fuel consumption.

Theh campaigns suitable for PTT are those aimed at cutting fuel use. That theme would fit other company campaigns for “green” living and also the Thai energy authority’s push for lower fuel consumption.

In a related case, last week I received a Bt100 coupon from the Metropolitan Waterworks Authority. Apparently I had used less water at home in September, and was being rewarded. (If the campaign had been better publicised, it would surely have been more effective.) With natural resources increasingly under pressure from overuse, other utility agencies and private companies should be encouraged to launch similar campaigns.
The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand is helping public institutions like temples and schools switch to energy-saving light bulbs. I expect the metropolitan and provincial electricity authorities to follow suit by launching their own energy-saving schemes.
These days, the more you spend at malls, the more rewards you receive. It would be nice instead if an environmental-friendly shopping campaign were launched, to find the shopper with the smallest carbon footprint for a given amount of spending money.
Restaurants could also join. What about dishes made only with ingredients sourced within a 2-kilometre radius?
There should also be campaigns to encourage offices to cut down power and water consumption. Some business premises maintain chilly climates even when the temperature drops dramatically outside.
Before last year, we had only six TV channels. Now we have more than 40. All run advertisements that promote more spending. It reminds me of a TV programme in Japan years ago: contestants were given a limited budget and challenged to create a healthy diet. With ramen noodles costing about 500 yen per portion, contestants managed to spend less than 1,000 yen for two meals. It was inspiring, both for people who buy whatever they can afford and those who have to live within their means.
In a world where affordability rules, people consume in line with and even beyond their budgets. As natural resources come under severe strain and the world gets more and more crowded, people need more incentives to change their ways of life. If we can make relatively minor adjustments at the everyday level, we might not need any deal from the ongoing climate change conference in Paris.