The Heart of the Daylight Saving Time Debate

Examining our health and wellbeing through daylight saving time

By: Jun Lin

Humans have always flirted with the idea of adjusting their schedules according to sunrise and sunset. Benjamin Franklin joked about conserving candles by waking with the sun and utilizing more daylight, and in 1985, George Hudson took the concept further because he wanted more sunlight in the evenings.

Hence what we know as daylight saving time (DST). The observation of DST is location-dependent, and in the United States, state-dependent. In the 1950s, DST’s implementation was protested in Minnesota, largely by farmers, although it already had a history of energy-conserving use during the two world wars.

Energy conservation has become a common justification of DST. From its aforementioned use during wartime to its effect on electricity-use patterns, studies suggest that while DST affects electricity consumption, its “positive” effects are highly contestable. A study showed that in Indiana, the residential demand for electricity increased 1 to 4 percent after the state started observing DST. A few key benefits are a decrease in street crimes, because fewer people are outside after the sun sets under DST, and an improvement in commuter safety by aligning with daylight.

DST’s main conundrum lies within the sudden hour-long shift when it starts and ends. Adjusting to this change can worsen sleep deprivation and fatigue, which can be linked to increases in traffic accidents and workplace injuries along with poorer workplace and stock market performances.

An incremental change in time (say, by 15 minutes at a time rather than an hour all at once) could alleviate adjustment pains, but it would be near impossible to implement without confusing the general population. To avoid the switch, some states and nations choose to either not observe DST at all or to implement permanent DST, leading to similar problems regarding fewer daylight operations during mornings or evenings, depending on the season.

The humanistic debate over DST holds the general public’s health and safety at the forefront of its concerns, and yet, due to our current system and relationship with time, the heart of the conflict lies within society’s relationship with productivity. It is impossible to implement a perfect solution because the concept of work runs on rigid, inflexible schedules. Rather than bending those rules, though, we would rather legislate to bend time itself, leaving us stuck between unsatisfactory solutions.