Daylight Saving Time (DST), the practice of adjusting clocks forward in the spring and back in the fall, has been a common practice in many countries for over a century. Originally introduced as a means to conserve energy during World War I, DST has become a subject of ongoing debate. While its proponents argue that it offers benefits like energy conservation and increased productivity, critics point to a range of negative effects, including health risks, disruption of schedules, and questionable energy savings. The tension surrounding DST lies in the balancing of historical traditions, scientific evidence, and modern needs.
The practice of shifting time forward in the spring to extend evening daylight has historical roots that forego modern technology. The idea was first proposed by Benjamin Franklin in 1784 as a way to make better use of daylight during the summer. However, it was not until World War I, in 1916, that Germany became the first country to adopt DST. The goal was to reduce energy consumption, especially in terms of lighting, by taking advantage of natural sunlight.
Today, many supporters of DST still argue that it provides a means of saving energy by reducing the need for artificial lighting. By shifting daylight to later in the day, energy consumption is theoretically reduced in the evenings. However, the argument for energy savings is increasingly being questioned. Modern research has shown that the impact of DST on energy consumption is minimal at best.
Shinsuke Tanaka, the director of graduate studies in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Connecticut, has conducted various studies over the detrimental effects of DST. The Uconn Today states: “Tanaka focuses on heart attacks, one of the most serious health impacts related to DST. Previous studies demonstrated that the number of heart attacks increases after the time change in spring, when clocks move forward one hour” (Aldrich).
For his research, Tanaka focuses on Indiana, because until 2006, only some counties in Indiana participated in Daylight Saving Time. This means that Tanaka can compare data from before and after 2006 to get a clear picture of the changes brought about by DST. Tanaka found a 27% increase in the number of heart attacks in Indiana for two weeks after the fall transition when the entire state started practicing DST compared to the year before, while no significant impact was observed (Aldrich).
The practice of DST has been a controversial topic in recent years. Given the evidence against DST as a legitimate means of reducing energy use, and the evidence of increased health risks associated with DST, many people are now arguing that the practice is dated and ineffective.
Work Cited
Aldrich, Anna Zarra. “Does Daylight Saving Time Actually Save? Research Shows Costs Outweigh Benefits – UConn Today.” UConn Today, 30 October 2024, https://today.uconn.edu/2024/10/does-daylight-saving-time-actually-save-research-shows-costs-outweigh-benefits/#. Accessed 15 November 2024.
