Hailey Nguyen / The Cougar
Throughout history, humans have rejected what were once considered established societal norms in favor of practices that have bettered society. Humans no longer perform lobotomies, use asbestos in buildings or include trial by combat in modern legal systems. Daylight savings should join those once-common practices as an idea of the past.
Texas has outgrown the need for seasonal clock changes, yet the practice continues largely out of habit rather than necessity. What was once justified for efficiency now creates more disruption than benefits, affecting sleep, productivity and overall well-being.
Continuing to observe daylight savings is less about practicality and more about reluctance to change. If the goal is to serve the public, it is time to treat daylight saving time like the outdated system it has become and leave it behind.
An outdated system
Daylight saving time was created on the outdated premise that it lowers energy consumption and promotes a more active society. In Texas, those arguments made some sense 100 years ago, but make little sense today.
The idea of daylight saving time was adopted by the U.S. in circumstances vastly different from today’s. Biannual daylight saving time was first introduced in 1918, when the U.S. faced a coal shortage due to World War I, and later reinstated as year-round during World War II.
When daylight saving time was widely incorporated in the U.S. after the passage of the Uniform Time Act of 1966, the share of electricity used for lighting was much higher than it is today. In 1970, General Electric estimated that almost a quarter of total U.S. energy consumption was used for lighting. Inventing the LED lightbulb alleviated much of lighting’s energy use. Now, lighting accounts for only 14% of total U.S. energy consumption as of 2020.
Not only has modernization reduced the amount of energy daylight saving time conserves, but the prevalence of AC has made it overall more wasteful. In the 1960s, when the Uniform Time Act became law, a small number of U.S. households had AC. Nowadays, AC has become a permanent fixture in almost every home, with that percentage hovering around 88%.
A study in Indiana focused on daylight saving time’s effect on energy consumption, noting an increase and costing homeowners an additional $9 million on their electricity bills. In Texas, where temperatures regularly reach 110 degrees, it is unrealistic to think those electrical expenses would not also be inflated.
Furthermore, the premise that daylight saving time encourages a more active society is not entirely true. At a glance, it makes some logistical sense that people would rather go outside when there is natural light. In warmer climates, that is not fully the case.
The daily temperature peaks when the sun is out and declines when it begins to set. Studies show more people visit places such as parks in the evening rather than during the day when the heat is extreme. An increase in sunlight and temperature is rational for colder climates in the northern U.S., such as New York and Washington, but not for the often humid, sweltering conditions in Texas.
The bigger picture
When debating whether to keep or eliminate daylight saving time, there is conflicting evidence on the health benefits and societal effects on both sides, but overall, adopting standard time in Texas would be much more beneficial.
Many of the arguments for daylight saving time are based on sociocultural norms that can be changed. Supporters argue that it increases business revenue by boosting daytime activity and reduces crime because light acts as a natural deterrent. These examples are more reflections of learned behavior in our society than concrete aspects of our way of life.
People can adapt to shopping and daily activities without natural light, making it the cultural norm rather than relying on daylight. In addition, crime deterrence in the evenings is more easily achieved when more people are out at these times, and lighting can be readily added to trouble spots.
In contrast, arguments against daylight saving time are based on natural biological factors. Daylight saving time disrupts our circadian rhythms by reducing natural morning light, leading to health issues such as higher heart rate and blood pressure.
Modeling circadian and light impacts, Stanford scientists found that switching to permanent standard time could also prevent 300,000 strokes and reduce obesity by up to 2.6 million people. Conversely, switching to permanent daylight savings would reduce those benefits, yielding only about two-thirds of the impact.
These are issues based upon our natural reality as humans and cannot be so readily changed as collective behavior in society.
For Texas to move forward, we must ditch many outdated traditions that no longer make sense in today’s world. The current daylight savings standard has served its purpose in the past, but we are far removed from it being a necessary part of Texas’s future. What worked in the past no longer serves Texas today.
opinion@thedailycougar.com
