So the Indiana Legislature has voted to pass Daylight Savings Time into law. After years of holding out, Indiana will join the other 48 states in changing their clocks twice a year.
First off, let me explain how I understand DST works, and if I'm mistaken, someone please comment and correct me. Note that these calculations assume that Indiana joins Eastern time (like Michigan above us). I will need two variables, let's call them RT (real time - aka unadjusted for DST aka the time that makes sense to Indianans) and DST. In the Spring, we add one hour to RT to get DST (RT + 1 = DST), and DST is the time displayed. This means that when the clock says 8:00PM, it is really 8:00PM - 1 = 7:00PM. Therefore, the sun is still up later. Also, in the morning, when the clock reads 6:00AM, the real time is 6:00AM - 1 = 5:00AM, and so the sun is a 5AM sun, not a 6AM sun. The bottom line is that during the Summer, the sun will rise and set one hour later than RT.
I have heard DST proponents claim that DST results in more daylight. I will now mathematically disprove this claim. First, let us take a typical day where the time of sunlight is a constant C. The way we compute C is to subtract sunset from sunrise. Algebraically, C = Sunset - Sunrise. Now we can display sunset and sunrise in either RT or DST. I'll do both cases.
Case 1: RT
C = RT(sunset) - RT(sunrise)
Case 2: DST
C = DST(sunset) - DST(sunrise)
C = (RT + 1)(sunset) - (RT+ 1)(sunrise)
C = RT(sunset) + 1 - RT(sunrise) - 1
C = RT(sunset) - RT(sunrise) + 1 - 1
C = RT(sunset) - RT(sunrise)
Notes: Please excuse my lack of ability to appropriately write subscripts. Treat (sunset) and (sunrise) as subscripts, please. Also, in case 2, the 1s do not have subscripts because one hour at sunrise is assumed to be the same as one hour at sunset.
Behold, the cases yield the same amount of daylight. Therefore it is mathematically impossible that DST gives you more sunlight.
But I can hear the DSTers saying now "But you have more time in the evening with sunlight." Very well, I agree to that. I have already said that the sun rises and sets one hour later. But now I have a question for the DSTers - if more sun in the evening was the goal, then why stop at just one hour? Wouldn't it make more sense to set sunrise at RT noon so that by the time most people were getting off work, it would hit the 11:00AM (RT) sun? That would provide a lot of sun in the evening, much more so than just one little hour.
I've also heard that DST is results in an economic benefit. This I cannot understand. Perhaps there is some small psychological correlation between consumption and sunlight, but it has yet to be included in any of the macroeconomic models that I have studied. Even if there was a correlation, I would say it is due to confounding factors (like maybe that more people sleep at night so there's less consumption then). I've also heard that DST saves energy. This cannot be the case because any energy you would save from air conditioning (in the morning) or lighting (in the evening) would be offset by opposite air conditioning/lighting in the evening/morning (respectively). I also have yet to see proof of either increased consumption or energy savings in any statistical format. Surely there are similar enough towns between Indiana and Ohio, two states very geographically close, that a statistical analysis of energy use and consumption could be formed for testing of these claims. The lack of proof concerns me.
Then there is the argument that Indiana's oddball time zone takes away from business here. I cannot see the point in that either. Time zone changes are not hard to adjust to - some industries do it all the time. Businesses in tropical nations do not observe DST (for scientific reasons, it is of no benefit for them to do so) yet they do not claim a lack of business because US companies change their local time once or twice a year. How much business is lost on the single frustration of "I don't know what time it is in Indiana?" Better yet, why would Indiana companies want to do business with a firm that is either too lazy or ignorant to use Google for 10 seconds to find out what time it is in Indiana? This I do not understand. If you do, please explain it to me.
In short, I fail to see what daylight is saved with DST. And where is this missing (because savings delays consumption) daylight stored? What interest rate am I getting on my sunlight? Can I redeem it during my retirement years for an extra-early game of golf or shuffleboard some day? I feel that time is one of those elements which is not supposed to be changed, but rather should progress in a straightforward, consistent manner in order to facilitate daily life. But then again, I am just a silly Indiana boy.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Daylight Savings? What's my interest rate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't like being anonymous, but I suppose you know who I am, so it won't matter too much.
As such, you will also know that I agree with you on this matter. DST makes little sense to me--especially for Indiana, which is already so far west. I've often even considered it odd for us Ohio people. By June 22, or whenever the summer solstice happens to occur, the sun doesn't set until 9:30 or so. I have to admit, though, playing outside until almost that late was pretty fun when I was little. My family would go on bike rides...get ice cream. Anyway, that's beside the point, I think. I didn't understand the reasons behind DST when I was that young. We could have done those things easily an hour earlier, and started the Fourth of July fireworks earlier, too.
There is one part of your argument here that confuses me, though. Why on earth would you consider changing RT so dramatically as to make sunrise at noon? I understand the point you're trying to make. But really, how preposterous it would be to have everyone change their sleep cycles to be working when it's dark. Also, I'm not sure I understand your logistics here, either. How could making sunrise at noon have people getting off work at 11 AM? Does everyone work third shift now?
The rest of your arguments are quite solid. However, I did find some evidence from a study on energy consumption versus DST. I found it in an article about a--yes, scream if you want to--possible extension of DST. Although it should interest you, you'll probably find it a bit more upsetting than Indiana's recent motion; I certainly consider it unnecessary. Here it is from Robert Longley of about.com:
"Love it or hate it, America's annual observance of daylight savings time would be extended an additional two months under a provision of the massive Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Currently observed from the first Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October, daylight savings time would be observed from the first Sunday in March to the last Sunday in November, should the bill be passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush."
And, accordingly, he provides evidence of this energy saving-daylight correlation:
"How Does Daylight Savings Time Save Energy?
Theory has it that daylight savings time promotes energy conservation. According to the California Energy Commission, energy use and the demand for electricity for lighting homes is directly connected to bedtime. When people go to bed, they turn of lights, TVs and other appliances, which account for about 25 percent of America's daily total use of electricity.
Studies done in the 1970s by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that America's electricity usage is reduced by about one percent during each day that daylight savings time is in effect."
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 would have us on DST half the year, but only if we want to go that long, Longley says. DST has always been optional. There you have it; we're being assaulted again by DST. But it won't take over the world if I have anything to say about it!
Andy,
My understanding of DST is that it was Ben Franklin's idea to save energy and help out farmers back in the days when people were still using street-lights etc. That however has nothing to do with the argument for or against it.
For the most part, I agree that it's relatively useless, however, as we have it, there is something to be said for IN aligning with one time zone or another.
It's not so much that IN maintaining it's non-participatory status is bad for business, it's more like changing it would be better. I mean NYC is a major business center and as things currently stand, we lose two business operating hours a day from not being on the same time zone with them: one in the morning and one at night. It's not so much that adjusting to Eastern time is difficult or impossible as not adjusting is less efficient.
Post a Comment