My idea for Daylight Saving Time

First, a little Andy Rooney mini-rant or two.

It should be called "Standard Time." After all, DST now constitutes eight months of the year.

And, of course it doesn't "save" daylight; it just moves it around.

That said, it also doesn't save energy. Indiana's recent transition, for the whole state to go on DST a few years back, showed that. More here.

Why? Even in a city as far north as Indianapolis, more homes are being built with central AC, and more people are running it more and more. (That may be a modest contributory factor to the obesity issue, too.) It's less efficient to run a home AC for a few people than office AC for a bunch, so moving more of the heat of the day to when people with day jobs are home from work uses more energy.

Now, back to what I see.

It's true, that moving from "standard" time to DST is physiologically dangerous.

So, what if we split our springing forward into two half-hour jumps, the first weekends of March and May? Ditto on falling back; do that in half-hour increments first weekends of September and November.

Or, if as is likely, that's too complex for the typical American householder, let's just have one half-hour jump.

Other than the PITA of the jet lag in the first week or two of DST, I like the idea. As a night owl, I hate sun staring in my bedroom window at, to riff on Sherman Potter, 3:30 in the blessed a.m.!

But, it would be nice to make this adjustment a gentler one, even if that means sacrificing half the time changed on the switch.

DST: May save energy, certainly affects health

The verdict is still somewhat out as to whether or not Daylight Savings Time saves energy or not (I’ve blogged before that it probably “LOSES” energy, through shoving more heat later into the day, when more people are at home, not work).

But, it clearly disrupts sleep and may cause more serious health problems.

TEMPUS FUGIT, DIES IRAE

The sun set
An hour earlier today
Than yesterday.
The leaves turned redder,
Or browner in this dry year,
And my hike ended at late dusk.
The time that flees is mine
More than the thirst-unquenched oak’s.
But the wrath that could be mine
At passed days and lost opportunities —
As the change of time reminds me
Of the change of life —
Is not, on many days, is not.
An emotional detachment often plays
In the pensively introspective
Key of B minor.
Tempus fugit, dies irae.

Red oak and eastern red cedar,
Windmill Hill Preserve,
DeSoto, Texas/Steve Snyder

DST actually COSTS energy

So much for saving energy from “springing forward” this weekend.

Up until 2006, only 15 of Indiana’s 92 counties went on Daylight Saving Time in the spring. Then, the state legislature mandated it statewide.

That gave University of California-Santa Barbara economics professor Matthew Kotchen and Ph.D. student Laura Grant a brainstorm: see how the time change affected energy consumption:

Their finding: Having the entire state switch to daylight-saving time each year, rather than stay on standard time, costs Indiana households an additional $8.6 million in electricity bills. They conclude that the reduced cost of lighting in afternoons during daylight-saving time is more than offset by the higher air-conditioning costs on hot afternoons and increased heating costs on cool mornings.

Why, then, in the past, has Congress claimed, and some private studies seemed to show, that DST saved energy?

In a word, or two: air conditioning.

Back in World War I, when the first DST system was implemented, Willis Carrier hadn’t yet introduced America to modern air conditioning. Because of the Depression, then World War II, it wasn’t until the late 1940s that it started becoming a regular residential feature.

Now, you have it in all sorts of places it’s not needed.

Los Angeles? How often does it get that hot there? Albuquerque? Use a swamp cooler instead. Michigan? Please. Not needed. Get box fans for the occasional hot day.

Phoenix? It’s going to keep getting hotter; by 2020, we’ll have nights in Phoenix that never get below 100. Move away, back to Michigan.