Skip to main content

Saving daylight

In light (forgive the pun) of the recent switch to Daylight-Saving Time, I offer the following editorial, originally published in 2007:

This weekend, clocks across the country will "spring forward" earlier than usual, as we observe daylight-saving time in March, rather than April, in compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

It was 100 years ago that William Willett, credited as the father of daylight-saving time, published his pamphlet, "The Waste of Daylight," advocating that clocks be changed in spring to take advantage of summer’s late-day sunlight and readjusted in fall.

While Willett’s writing dwells largely on issues of human comfort, it does also discuss the potential energy savings that would result from such a shift _ the same savings that led to the 2005 act that has Americans changing their clocks in March.

Since its introduction in the United States in 1918, daylight-saving time has been the subject of numerous studies.

Does it save energy? How much does it save? Does it lead to more automobile accidents? More crime? Less productivity?

Those questions are still being debated _ not only in the United States, but elsewhere in the world where forms of daylight-saving time are observed.

Even the 2005 act is subject to review, including as it does a stipulation that the effect of the shift be studied by the Department of Energy to determine how much energy, if any, is being saved.

At the time the Energy Policy Act was passed, it made headlines for several reasons.

On one hand, the original bill would have allowed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which many environmental advocates oppose and others argue is key in diminishing the United States’ dependence on foreign oil.

On the other hand, many critics denounced the act as being too friendly to oil companies and not doing enough to commit the United States to renewable energy sources.

With these issues in the forefront, the daylight-saving time switch understandably got short shrift, for the most part, in the media.

But the change has gained new prominence in recent weeks, drawing comparisons to the dreaded Y2K bug for its impact on technology. In 1999, the problem of updating the nation’s time-sensitive computers seemed nearly impossible.

This switch, it turns out, is no less challenging. A March 6 Chicago Tribune article dubbed it "mayhem lite" and quoted the University of California at Berkeley’s chief information officer, Shelton Waggener, observing that the switch is "more complex than the people in Washington considered."

This is no doubt not the last instance we will see of "mayhem lite," as society’s dependence on technology shows no sign of waning. It is poignant to remember, amid installing computer software patches, programming microwave clocks, synchronizing PDAs and reprogramming cell phones that the very idea of daylight-saving time was suggested first and foremost as a way to better enjoy our leisure time.

One wonders: What would Willett think of us now?

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
-- Douglas Adams

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Leap second decision put on hold

The International Telecommunication Union recently postponed a decision on whether to do away with the leap second -- which means, by default, it will remain until at least 2015.


The leap second is artificially inserted into the stream of time every now and then to account for the slowdown of the earth's rotation. Like the leap year, this system speaks to a fundamental clumsiness inherent to our system of timekeeping -- however precise it may seem on a day-to-day basis.


Felicitas Arias, director of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, is among those arguing for the abolition of the leap second, as she explains in this interview from December. But scientists could not agree at the ITU's recent summit, so the decision got put off.


"We are using a system that breaks time," Arias argues. "The quality of time is continuity." 


True, but it is hard to accept Arias' unwillingness to come up with an alternate system, instead leaving it to future generat…

Book review: "The Greenwich Time Lady"

From PopMatters.com:

With its brusque opening lines ("What time is it? It’s a simple question and this book looks at some of the ways we have tried to answer it over the last couple of hundred years"), Ruth Belville: The Greenwich Time Lady plunges the reader headlong into a densely packed gem of a history—one that author David Rooney, curator of timekeeping at the British Royal Observatory, is uniquely qualified to tell.

The book’s eponymous heroine was the last in a short line of Belvilles who made their living in a unique manner: they literally brought time itself from the Greenwich Royal Observatory to a London subscriber base that included shopkeepers, shipping firms and clockmakers. Through a tenuous and complex arrangement with the observatory’s Astronomer General, the Belvilles were granted weekly entry to the observatory, where a clerk would adjust their steadfast watch (nicknamed “Arnold” after its maker, John Arnold) to the correct time and provide a certificate den…