There has not been a discussion on this topic in two years so I would like to see what people thing about this issue. The Government is going to extend daylight savings time. According to some studies, the US saves energy by making the time change.

Do these studies compensate for other factors that might wash out these savings? This article from the National Review talks about the history of DST.
Questions for debate:

1) Should the Government extend Daylight Savings Time?

2) Will an extended DST save energy?

3) Should DST be abolished?

4) Alternate: What changes would you make?

1) Should the Government extend Daylight Savings Time?

Absolutely. Not only for the reasons stated in your first quote (keeping the lights off) but for others as well. More daylight, more opportunity for outdoor activities and with the growing waist lines in the states I don’t see how that’s a bad thing (a bit selfish but I can get in a complete round of golf after work!). The mental aspect: during the fall/winter months there’s nothing more depressing than getting up and going to work in the dark and getting home in the dark.

2) Will an extended DST save energy?

I think it would. Personally, when I get up in the morning I’m out the door in about half an hour, so only half an hour of light consumption. Compared to getting home and having the lights on until bed time.

Your second quote regarding the air conditioners. Mine didn’t kick off until about 3:00 am this morning (nasty storm rolled in waking me up) and it’s going to be on during the day as well. Although I have a programmable thermostat for when I’m away during the day is seldom stops running. With the recent heat wave that most of the country is experiencing my guess is most AC’s are running all day so at least this would save powering on the lights.

In the fall/spring (which the extended DST would target) when the temperatures are comfortable, little or no heating/AC the savings could be huge.

More daylight? I'm sorry, but in all my astronomy classes we seemed to have skipped the part where moving the hands on some clocks created enough gravitational force to realign Earth in such a manner as to create more daylight...could you please explain how this occurs? I just moved my clock back another two hours, but didn't notice any change in the sun...did I do it wrong? Or do several people all have to do it at the same time? How come we don't all feel the 'bump' when everyone does change their clocks? If half of us moved our clocks the other way, does daylight savings disappear? Things that make me go hmmmm......

I bring this up because of the second quote in Nemov's post....too often the supposed benefits of having more daylight after work aren't considered against the potential costs of having less daylight earlier, or even the potential costs incurred later. Also, I ask the following...if DST is truly a good thing, we are we messing around with a measly little hour? Why not reset the clocks by like 8 hours, moving all daylight until after work, to be spent as we wish? I suspect the various answers to that question will bring to light (sorry, couldn't resist ) additional factors which should be considered when discussing the relative merits of DST.

2) Will an extended DST save energy?



With more daylight, aren't we more active? Don't we expend energy during those active hours? Note the original supporters of DST were shopkeepers, who felt that people would shop more on their way home if it were light out (thereby expending energy driving around, and at the shops). Again, if this is really true, why do we just move the clock one hour, when the logic would indicate that much greater savings could be gained if we shifted all daylight.

Way to take a piece of a post and distort the meaning Hobbes. We all know Fife was talking about daylight after work. DST moves 1 hour of light when most of the country is asleep in the early morning and pushes it the end of the day. Why not move all 8 hours? People need light to do any outdoor jobs for one. When we have more daylight hours and the sun is rising at 6 AM, your job still starts when it always did. Instead of adjusting every companies work schedule, adjust the clocks. It's easier and more efficient.

2) Will an extended DST save energy? DST does save electricity. It's proven. The reason is that most of us are awake when the sun goes down but not everyone is awake and using electricity when the sun comes up.

....and it seems quite clear you have turned around and done the very same thing to me, completely ignoring the second paragraph of my response which should have made it clear that I very much understand this distinction. Except that I managed to point it out without any emoticons, my bad....

There was indeed some method to my madness, which I had hoped would have been more apparent. That being to point out the extreme hubris it takes to think that some legislation can actually change the physical forces that dictate how much daylight there is.



...I don't doubt you on this, but it would carry a little more weight if there were a link to at least one study showing this, don't you think?

That point aside, wouldn't market forces solve this problem if indeed there were so much benefit to be gained? How come people aren't out there searching for companies that start work at 6 so they can go home earlier, and save all that money? Wouldn't market forces dictate that companies would offer this benefit to their employees as a way to entice them to work there? The reality is that these things don't happen because the individual benefit isn't that great. Which doesn't preclude the collective benefit...but should make one wonder whether its really worth it.



So, assuming all the benefits of saving that daylight, why should the rest of us be punished because of those for whom this doesn't work? If someone's work requires daylight, the actual time that comes at shouldn't make any difference. They can go about their work while the rest of us sleep, just like all the graveyard shift workers do now...the rest of us could then reap the incredible benefits of not 1 but 8 hours of saved daylight. Logic dictates that the reason why don't do this could only be that the benefits aren't really all that great....

I distorted nothing. I put that we all(that would include you) know what Fife meant despite your attempts to make yourself look witty at another's expense by sarcastically arguing against a point that no one made.

Here is your study. It explains the energy savings quite clearly. The energy savings are small(about 1% a day), but I still am unable to fathom why taking advantage of any savings could be a bad thing. Why wouldn't it be worth it? What exactly is the cost?

Another reason to move it just one hour instead of 8 is that indoor jobs benefit from having light outside as well. Your office would have to expend more energy lighting the workplace. The whole advantage of DST to ensure that most people are not asleep when the sun is out so that they can take advantage of the light. Whether you are working or at home doesn't matter from a lighting standpoint.

1) Should the Government extend Daylight Savings Time?
It doesn't much matter to me, personally, since I live in an extreme southern end of the country. It's nice that daylight extends so long during the summer, but it makes it seem that much darker in the winter.

But I don't think the policy makes any sense anymore, regardless of where the daylight hours begin and end. It was enacted in a time before the prevalence of air conditioning and cheap fluorescent lighting.

As far as the commuting accidents argument goes, pick your poison. Would you rather have daylight while the groggy people of the world are rushing to work, or would you rather have daylight while the work-drained and frustrated people of the world are rushing back home?

2) Will an extended DST save energy?
Maybe it did at one time, but extending the amount of daylight in summer encourages the use of more air conditioning, which more than offsets the cost of lighting. In addition, the growing use of fluorescent lighting makes it cheaper to be active at night than it used to. Blue-tinted fluorescent lighting is even preferred for those who suffer from Seasonal Affective Disorder, where mood is tied to the exposure to sunlight. One might be able to make an economic argument for people having more time to go out and do things (i.e., spend money) during daylight hours, but I think the energy argument fails.

3) Should DST be abolished?
I would like to see it disappear. But then, I'm virtually off the grid, being self-employed & having no kids. I don't think the energy-saving argument cuts it anymore, however. Right now, it's a lifestyle argument.

4) Alternate: What changes would you make?
If America really wants to get serious about the use of energy by individual consumers, it would encourage energy producers to charge different rates for different hours of the day. This would 1) discourage excessive air conditioning use, and 2) encourage companies to come up with more efficient air conditioning designs.

As our world gets warmer over the next century or so due to fossil fuel burning (when oil runs out, coal will follow), this will become even more of an issue.

As the mother of an 11-1/2 year old child (can't forget that 1/2! ), I get tired of arguments about bedtime because it isn't dark out yet. As a consequence, the kid gets up later, and daylight hours that are cooler (morning) are not used to get things done. We do not have an air conditioner--just fans--and so many things that could be done earlier are left undone because of the heat.

Many businesses still seem to close at the same time, and those businesses that stay open longer have fewer cashiers and salespeople out on the floor to help the people who are taking advantage of the extended hours (and the air conditioning! ), at least here in Michigan, where the economic comeback hasn't arrived yet.

I think that DST should be abolished, simply because it doesn't appear to provide the amenities it was supposed to, and because people with children have this constant struggle. In addition, how much money and work hours would be saved if we didn't have to change the darn clocks twice a year? How many people would not be coming into work one hour late (or early) because they missed the time change?

Even though I started this topic I really do not know where I fall on this. There are a lot of factors to consider. With a country the size of the US daylight is different in Maine than it is in Florida. It is difficult to make a universal daylight change because it affects some areas differently.



According to the studies (which I cannot find) it would save energy, but I am not sure if it's drastic enough to warrant a change.



I think we should pick a time and stick with it. I guess Arizona and Indiana already do this. Is there any particular reason those states opt out? Does anyone know?

Well, you can get a unique Alaskan view of our distaste for DST here:

http://www.adn.com/news/government/story/6...p-6633776c.html

Pretty much sums it up for us!

Thanks for the link CR. Please tell me this 1% increase in energy saving is from a study newer than the one taken in the 70's the article references. There is no way a study close to 30 years old is relevant to today. It is also funny what interest groups are behind this change. Our Congress really is for sale to the highest bidder. It is the only bipartisan part of the legislative branch.

Being the conservative that you are I’m sure you’re in bed at 2:00am when the clocks are set back/ahead, otherwise you’d feel that bump of extra time and hear the stretch of the cosmos. Set your clock next time and enjoy what the rest of us have for years, it’s a great light show and we won’t even make you hug a tree. And I’ll extend an offer to call you on Sunday morning and help you change the time on your VCR.

From one of the amendment’s sponsors, Fred Upton, R - MI, “Kids across the nation will soon rejoice with the extended daylight on Halloween night that will allow for an addition hour of trick or treating”. Do you realize what this will do for candy sales??!! Surely the evil Liberal dentists are behind this!! Come on Hobbes, are you a Halloween grinch and an anti-Dentite?

Actually I’m a bit surprised Hobbes, I’ve had the utmost respect for you (and still do) because of all the right wingers on here you’re about the only one who isn’t blindly loyal as on occasion I’ve seen you cast a few stones your own way. But you’re still OK in my quantum physics book!

And thank you Just Leave Me Alone for “watching my back” in my absence.

The proposed Upton-Markey amendment (bi-partisan sponsorship) evidently has plenty of sources that back up their claims of increased economic activity, decrease in energy consumption, reduction in crime and more time for recreational activity, else these representative would have certainly been grilled by their peers. Other studies indicate that it will even reduce the amount of traffic accidents. I see a lot of benefit from this and other than Paladin Elspeth point (tougher getting the kids to bed) I see very little down side.

JLMA, now I understand your ire, but please allow me to point out it is due to an incorrect perception of my motivations. I had no intention of belittling Fife...although I can see where you would get that perception. Rather (true to my conservative roots) I was merely attempting to point out a case of government perhaps overextending its bounds, attempting to legislate forces of nature. Apologies to Fife for any perceived slights.

From the study you cited (which I liked btw, as it is one of the few cited here that seemed objective and actually pointed out both sides of the issue):



This is the thought that I was trying to get across. As one generally against government intervention where none is required, I reiterate my previous question...why not just let market forces take care of this. There must be reasons why some states have opted out of DST (although their ability to do so mitigates some of my concerns).



Actually, as a conservative, I'm usually a grinch 24-7, 365 days a year. We sometimes take a break on Halloween, though.





So, it seems that outside of PE's argument, the main concern regarding DST comes from farmers. Since we are moving (already moved?) away from an agrarian society, this seems of a minor concern. Also, note that their issue is as much from the clocks changing as it is from the time itself. Further, note that:



So, DST saves energy year round, and the main complaint against it seems to stem from the switching back and forth. So, perhaps we can meet in the middle, and abolish DST by simply enacting it year-round? It's always puzzled me that we switched back, anyway....as the article states, the benefits are year round. I have lived in the northern US, and can tell you the argument against this there....kids walking to school in the dark. How much energy savings is this security issue worth?



Heck, CR....your daylight is so messed up there anyway, what difference does an hour make?

No offense taken, but thank you. And it’s good to know you’re nice to the kids on Halloween.


The government legislates around forces of nature all the time. You can’t build homes or businesses in flood plains, you are forced to evacuate coastlines when hurricanes are approaching and certain new structures must be ‘earth quake’ resistant.

All of these are enacted with the “collective good” in mind and there’s nothing wrong with the government enacting legislation that they feel can begin to ease our reliance on oil. It has to start some where and as dad used to say “pennies add up to nickels, nickels to quarters and quarters to dollars”. It all counts.


While I empathize with Mr. Notenbomer and his chicken dilemma and although he’s Canadian, this situation reminds me of JFK”s famous words “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”.

We as citizens need to understand that every piece of legislation, enactment, and entitlement, may not directly benefit us and may even cause inconveniences or sacrifices. But if it’s for the collective good than each of us needs to understand we’re better off as a country.

No. It's bothersome enough now as it is anyway.




Yes. However, I do not consider it a reasonable trade-off. It seems to me power companies would be the only ones vying for this, less output means less taxes.




Although I personally dislike Daylight Savings Time, I don't think it wise to take us off of the system after the sixty or seventy odd years we have been on it.




To go back in time and prevent Daylight Savings Time from ever becoming a blip on the radar screen.

Yes, I hope they change it! There's nothing more depressing than driving home after work at 5pm in the dark.

After looking at the sunset/sunrise times for last year in 3 different places -- Orlando, Florida; Huntington, W. Virginia; and Ashland, Maine -- I think that the final proposal of a one month shift, agreed upon by the House and Senate negotiators, would work.

Here is the story:

Lawmakers move to extend daylight saving time

It starts DST on the second Sunday in March and ends it on the first Sunday in November.

I completely agree with VDemosthenes .

1) Yes, having to change my clocks twice is going to be much more bothersome now that I will have to do it a month later.

2) Though this will save energy, there will be less taxes. This idea stinks.

3) Though bothersome, I am a now a puppet and changing makes no sense.

4) Early to bed and early to rise. People want daylight? WAKE UP EARLIER! The happiness of the majority should not get in the way of mother nature. Period.

1) Should the Government extend Daylight Savings Time?
No, there is very little that will be accomplished with this silly adjustment and more harm cause by messing with the DST calendar of computers and electronic devices. Stop messing with my TIVO!

2) Will an extended DST save energy?
The evidence I have seen to support this has shown a tiny impact to energy use, due to less lighting being engaged. However, I also doubt this takes into account the energy efficiency of today's lighting devices, so any loss from returning to standard time would likely be mitigated.

3) Should DST be abolished?
Yes. DST is an arcane convention created originally to help support a largely agrarian economy. Other than serving as a reminder to check your fire alarm batteries, I find very little value in it overall.