Petition to abolish daylight savings time in the United States

[elagache]

Dear WeatherCat fans of undisturbed sleep!

Tomorrow WeatherCat users in the USofA all will suffer the misery of the change to daylight savings time.  We have been led to believe it was worth it because daylight savings time conserves energy.  However, the state of Indiana has regions that never switch to daylight saving time. Researchers took advantage of this to make quantitative comparisons and found the exact opposite - because of daylight saving time, we use more energy.  This should not be surprising really. The vast majority of people have their activities regulated by the clock rather than the hours of daylight available. As a result, in winter people are required to heat structures earlier than would occur without daylight savings. In the summertime, air conditioning costs increase because people are active when the outdoor temperatures are hotter than they would be without daylight savings.  In addition, switching to daylight saving is a known public health risk.  In the days after daylight savings takes effect, the heart attack and fatal automobile accident rate increases.  Here is a news article provides a good summary of these findings:

http://www.inquisitr.com/2878317/daylight-savings-time-is-it-really-worth-it-studies-find-sleep-loss-resulting-from-springing-forward-increases-risk-of-heart-attack/

There is a petition asking our elected leaders to abolish daylight savings time:

http://www.petition2congress.com/6284/end-daylight-savings-time/

Considering that daylight savings had no advantages and some serious health consequences, I'm urge everyone to consider signing it.  Unfortunately, the text is rather amateurish.  This petition offers you an opportunity to send a letter to the president and your local elected officials.  I've gone through the trouble of looking up the studies cited in the Inquisitr article and written up a letter that I feel is more persuasive.  I'm appending it to the bottom of this post.  Feel free to use any or all of it or for that matter simply to look the studies in question.

Cheers, Edouard



P.S. Please to encourage anyone and everyone you know to sign this petition if you feel the same way I do.

P.P.S. Sorry, I don't know of any movements outside the United States, but there should be!

------

The assumption is that daylight saving time actually saves energy. However, all it ever did was to shift human activities to take advantage of additional hours of sunlight. The state of Indiana has regions that never switch to daylight saving time. Researchers took advantage of this to make quantitative comparisons:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14429

Their results were that daylight savings actually causes a greater use of energy than staying on standard time. This should not be surprising really. The vast majority of people have their activities regulated by the clock rather than the hours of daylight available. As a result, in winter people are required to heat structures earlier than would occur without daylight savings. In the summertime, air conditioning costs increase because people are active when the outdoor temperatures are hotter than they would be without daylight savings.

In addition, daylight savings is a demonstrable health risk. A 2014 study presented to American College of Cardiology:

http://www.acc.org/about-acc/press-releases/2014/03/29/09/16/sandhu-daylight-saving

and 2012 study performed by University of Alabama at Birmingham:

https://www.uab.edu/news/focus-on-patient-care/item/2141-heart-attacks-rise-following-daylight-saving-time

both demonstrate an dramatic increase in the incidence of heart attacks in the week immediately after switching to daylight savings. Traffic safety also suffers. A 2014 study by the University of Colorado:

http://www.colorado.edu/econ/papers/WPs-14/wp14-05/wp14-05.pdf

and a University of British Columbia study

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199604043341416

show a statistically significant increase in fatal automobile accidents the week after switching to daylight savings.

The evidence is overwhelming that daylight saving time has no positive effects and very serious negative consequences. The abolishment of daylight savings time should be considered a matter of the greatest urgency.

[Randall75]

Edouard
My 2 cents on this
just leave it on daylight savings all year round
 

[dfw_pilot]

I agree, Edouard! I lived in Indiana for a long time and really enjoyed the lack of time change. I don't think it's the boon that it has been sold as (just like some theories on "change"   )

[Bull Winkus]

I'm with Edouard & Randall! Either do away with it, or leave it on all the time.

However, if we really wanted to go 21st century, we could simply mandate that 1 minute be added to the time at midnight for a 60 day period in the Spring, and removed the same way in the Fall. After all, all clocks are digital now, aren't they? Wouldn't take much to design the new specs into currently manufactured clocks, and it would be good for the economy.

Offered up with tongue in cheek, but hey! ? Except for the initial pain of changing over, and all the obsolete clocks headed for the landfills a little sooner than planned, it's not a bad idea.

 

[Steve]

I would not want to do away with daylight savings time. I really enjoy the extra hour of daylight in the evening during the months when I am outdoors.

And you can't "do away with daylight savings time" and then turn around and use daylight savings time year 'round.

[xairbusdriver]

I agree with everyone! I think... right now, I gotta go turn my Sundial a bit.

[elagache]

Dear Randall, dfw, Herb, Steve, X-Air, and WeatherCat social policy observers,

just leave it on daylight savings all year round

Unfortunately leaving the country in constant daylight savings doesn't solve the serious problem which this study points out:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14429

That study could compare the energy use in Indiana in the regions that remain on standard time with those who switch daylight savings.  Their results was that the people in the daylight savings regions spent 9 million dollars more in energy costs than those in standard time.  The savings in lighting was more than eaten up by the additional heating and cooling costs.  Continuing daylight savings year around would further increase our winter heating costs because we would heating our houses earlier in the morning when it is colder.  What this study concludes is that daylight savings time simply doesn't make any sense because of change in our lifestyle and structures.  It's obsolete.

The principle motivation for why the country switches to standard time in the winter is public safety.  There simply aren't enough hours of daylight to span our normal hours of activity and remaining on daylight savings time would leave the morning commute into darkness.  Since children attend school in the morning, but return home before the onset of darkness in the evening, returning to standard time reduces the traffic risks for school age children.  In addition, the morning commute tends to have a sharper peak traffic load.  Since one commute must be in darkness due to the lack of sufficient hours of daylight, it stands to reason that the easier commute of the two is the best to leave in darkness.

I would not want to do away with daylight savings time. I really enjoy the extra hour of daylight in the evening during the months when I am outdoors.

I understand the desire, but it really doesn't make any sense to increase our energy use simply to get that extra hour of daylight.  Add in the very serious health issues associated with the switch to daylight savings and it is a huge mistake.   This paper:

http://www.colorado.edu/econ/papers/WPs-14/wp14-05/wp14-05.pdf

Claims that on average 30 motorists a year are killed in accidents that can be blamed on the shift to daylight savings.   His estimate of the cost for the accidents associated with the shift to daylight savings at 275 million dollars a year!  These are costs we really cannot afford.

Steve, nobody is keeping you from setting your alarm clock one hour earlier.  However, keep in mind that if you do that and heat your house that extra hour, you'll have to pay for that additional energy.

Cheers, Edouard

[Steve]

Steve, nobody is keeping you from setting your alarm clock one hour earlier.  However, keep in mind that if you do that and heat your house that extra hour, you'll have to pay for that additional energy.

I'm retired; I don't have an alarm clock. My house is heated or cooled to the same temperature all the time, so there would be no change in energy costs for me. With a heat pump, it costs more to change the temperature more than two degrees than set it back at night.

[xairbusdriver]

How about this?

We simply need to cut back the length of a "work-day" during the shorter, colder months and lengthen them during the longer, warmer months. Of course, that would also require people stay in bed most of those extra home hours so they could stay under the covers instead of heating/cooling the whole house. OTOH, the increased birthrates might be a burden on the health care system. OTOH, we could simply put on warmer/cooler clothes instead of hearing/cooling the whole house. On the other, other hand, you can see how illuminating one mess only creates another. I simply don't think there is enough people concerned about this 'problem' one way or the other; not with the problems with wars, weather, and worthless new POTUS possibilities!!!!

[elagache]

Howdy Steve, X-Air and WeatherCat home energy managers,

I'm retired; I don't have an alarm clock. My house is heated or cooled to the same temperature all the time, so there would be no change in energy costs for me. With a heat pump, it costs more to change the temperature more than two degrees than set it back at night.

Okay, that's interesting.  I never thought about the advantages to keeping the house the same temperature in winter to improve the efficiency of the heat pump.

When we had to replace the furnace we got one of those fancy programmable thermostats and I have tried to give it settings to heat the house in a manner that keeps us comfortable in the daytime, but allows the house to cool at night when we are in bed and have the extra insulation. 

Your energy saving strategy very much depends on the systems you have to heat and cool the house.

We simply need to cut back the length of a "work-day" during the shorter, colder months and lengthen them during the longer, warmer months.

It sounds crazy today, but that is exactly what the life of a farmer was before technology like clocks and transportation timetables forced all of us into a regimented way of life.  It sounds nostalgic but in truth the work in summer was very hard and while there wasn't much to do in winter - keeping warm was a serious challenge.

Cheers, Edouard

[Bull Winkus]

Other considerations are the temperature extremes in Winter and solar heat gain and capacity of the structure. I used to live in Wyandotte, Michigan, which is roughly 50 miles north of Steve. I know the kind of extremes he deals with. Also, homes in the area have, for the most part, been constructed with Winter extremes in mind. Generally, if possible, a south facing building will have a brick facade exposed to the sun in Winter to absorb heat during the day and slowly release it in the evening.

When the temperature remains below freezing for several days, using a set back at night on the thermostat may save on energy costs, but at a cost of comfort in the mornings, for as long as it takes to bring the internal temperatures up to desired levels. Plus, most of what is saved is given back during the time the unit is running constantly to regain temperature.

 

[Blicj11]

Other considerations are the temperature extremes in Winter and solar heat gain and capacity of the structure.

Absolutely true. We live in a mountain cabin and have radiant floor heat. It uses more energy to use setback programming than to just leave it at a constant setting during the winter. We turn the whole system off during the summer.