A Daylight Debacle: Is Daylight Saving Time Still Relevant?

Whether you noticed it or not, in 2008 Daylight Saving Time ended a bit later than normal. Though this is in fact the second year of the new Daylight Saving Time, or DST, schedule, many Americans are still not used to the new timeframe. DST now begins on the first Sunday in March and ends on the second Sunday in November, extending the established period of time adjustment by over a month. While DST has come to be accepted as common practice, few understand the reasoning for such a system. To better comprehend the effects of and rationalizations for DST, it may be helpful to first review why DST was created at all.

In the United States, DST was established in 1919 as an energy saving method during wartime. Though regulation, the legal definition, and the length of DST has fluctuated in the United States, DST has still existed in one form or another since that time.

Many of the reasons that DST was established are still viable today. Without DST, a portion of the day's sunlight during summer would be lost to people staying in bed. Moving clocks ahead by an hour allows for workplaces, schools, and other establishments to remain on their normal schedule without forcing individuals who want to enjoy the early sunlight to wake at too early an hour. This adjustment also presents a longer period of daylight in the evening when people are returning from work and school. This allows for more outdoor leisure time in the evenings. The extended period of sunlight throughout daytime hours also can be beneficial to laborers whose jobs take place outside, such as those involved in the agricultural industries. More daylight should provide greater productivity and a reduction in energy costs.

A lower energy burden is a potential benefit as a result of DST. With more natural light available, it is reasonable to think that usage of electricity for artificial lighting should decrease, especially in the mornings and evenings (Energy conservation...). The United States has several times re-arranged DST in order to assist in perceived energy crises, as was the case in the 1970s. With lower energy consumption leading to decreased energy bills, it is easy to see why governments across the world have looked to DST as an effective measure in reducing power demand.

There is also some evidence that DST may have positive effects on human health. In the first  three days following the end of DST, there is evidence to suggest that we see a reduced amount of heart attacks (Janszky). The increased amount of evening daylight may also provide more time for exercise and therefore promote healthier behaviors. Rising earlier and experiencing more sunlight also affects seasonal affective disorder (SAD), and DST shifts may be beneficial in reducing incidents of depression (Olders).

However, for all the evidence stacked in DST's favor the sheer amount of negative and contradictory evidence far outweighs DST's benefits. In all of the main issues that I have discussed above, new studies are beginning to negate the favorable outcomes of the shifting of the clock. Recent evidence shows detrimental impacts on energy usage and health. Yes, DST may give us more time to bask in the precious sunlight, but at the end of the day this is a superficial result.

A great number of studies conducted in relation to the effect of time shifts on power usage have in fact shown the reverse outcome of what was intended. Instead of a decrease in energy consumption, we see an increase, and ironically, in some areas the increase is during the hours that DST is intended to decrease consumption (Kellogg). In a study on the effects of DST on power usage in Indiana, a state who chose not to enforce DST in some areas until 2006, it was determined that the yearly clock adjustment actually increased overall energy usage by 1-4% (Grant). This increase has caused Indiana households to experience additional total costs of $8.6 million per year. This is not including the “social cost” of DST due to factors such as increased pollution, which tacks on between $1.6 million and $5.3 million dollars per household per year (Gramling). 

But energy demands stretch farther than just increased power consumption in homes. There are studies that suggest shifts during Daylight Saving Time are also responsible for increases in spending on fossil fuels, especially gasoline for use in transportation. In 2007, when DST was rescheduled and lengthened in the US, gas use increased by 1% (McCarthy).  These figures glaringly present major flaws in DST. Across-the-board increases in energy spending are a clear indicator of the ineffectiveness of DST as an energy saving measure. 

Saving energy, however, should be the least of people's worries as DST also seems to be responsible for an increasing number of health issues. For starters, the very same study that found a decreased number of heart attacks during the days following DST also observed increased heart attack rates during the days just after the start of DST (Janszky). Sure, these numbers probably balance themselves out, but is any increase in danger to human lives justifiable by a subsequent decrease? Contradictory reports have also surfaced indicating that DST may in fact have unfavorable repercussions concerning SAD and depression rates. One study even points to increased suicide rates, especially among males, during the spring after DST has begun (Berk).