Since I was a strong Kamala Harris supporter, it isn't surprising that much of what Trump wants to do in his second term as president worries me. But there are big differences when it comes to my emotional reaction toward Trump's proposals.
If he wants to get back to building his border wall, even if Mexico doesn't pay for it, I say, fine, go ahead. If he wants to pardon some or all of the January 6 rioters, a wrong-headed idea, I say, fine, go ahead. However, if he wants to do away with Daylight Savings Time and make the entire nation stick with Standard Time year-round, I say, no freaking way, keep your political hands off of DST!
Problem is, that's what Trump has said he wants to do.
This is a bad idea. It's also an unpopular idea. In a blog post I wrote in February of this year, when a Republican legislator was trying to get Oregon to adopt permanent standard time (the bill failed), I argued why my state should keep DST.
National polls show that most Americans prefer permanent daylight saving time.
[In one poll] two-thirds of those polled said they prefer daylight saving time in some form, permanent or part of the year, with just one-third preferring permanent standard time.
We'll be returning to daylight saving time on March 10. I can hardly wait. It's great to be able to walk our dog in the late afternoon when the sun is still shining brightly, instead of close to or after it sets. My mood perks up when daylight saving time returns.
Sure, it's a bit of an inconvenience to switch clocks twice a year. I adjust to the change in sleep pattern quite easily, though I realize others have more of a problem with this. Well, the solution for them is to press Congress to approve the request of Oregon, Washington, and California to make daylight saving time permanent in the west coast states.
It sure isn't to pass unpopular legislation making standard time permanent. The only states that have done this are Hawaii and Arizona. Note their characteristics: they have lots of sun and are much farther south than Oregon!
A much more comprehensive and geekier argument in favor of Daylight Savings Time appeared in my email inbox today, courtesy of Nate Silver -- whose substack I subscribe to.
Silver is skilled at analyzing complex issues. Here's a PDF file of his nicely researched essay, "Save Daylight Savings Time: Donald Trump and Elon Musk's plan would literally make the average American's life darker."
Download Save Daylight Savings Time - by Nate Silver
Some excerpts:
Last week, President-elect Trump pledged to “eliminate” Daylight Savings Time1, which he called “inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation”. The idea may have been inspired by DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, an agency set to be run by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, after Musk and Ramaswamy pitched a similar plan earlier this month.
I suppose I’m not anti-DOGE, though it’s hard to say because its structure and its mandate are unclear. I’d certainly like for it not to cost $2.5 billion to build a single mile of subway track in New York, for instance. But without having any real teeth to implement its policies, DOGE may focus more on gimmicks — and will run the risk of violating the precept of Chesterton's Fence by changing things that are perfectly fine or where the current rules are in place for a reason.
Daylight Savings Time is a perfect example of this. Eliminating it would deprive the average American of 40 minutes of waking daylight in the summer months. This is a terrible idea.
Just to be explicit about what we’re talking about — because I know it can be confusing exactly which is “DST” and which is “standard time” — Daylight Savings Time pushes the clock forward by an hour in the summer months, along with the spring and early fall. (This year, DST was in place from March 10 to November 3.)
For instance, with DST — the status quo — the sun rises in New York at 5:24 a.m. and sets at 8:31 p.m. on the longest day of the year in June. If we reverted to year-round standard time as Trump proposes, those times would shift forward an hour, meaning sunrise at 4:24 a.m. and sunset at 7:31 p.m. No more of those glorious summer evenings spent at Citi Field or Yankee Stadium where it’s still light out until the sixth inning.
True, the twice-annual time changes — you know the drill: spring forward, fall back — are annoying and associated with some tangible consequences, such as an increase in traffic accidents because of sleep deprivation. But to be honest, those consequences are pretty minor. One estimate is that they only amount to about 30 extra traffic deaths per year in a country of 335 million people. And we’re talking about just one hour, something most people can take in stride.
Let’s say you’re living in New York, and a friend who popped into town cancels plans to hang out because they complain of jetlag. If they’re arriving from Paris or Hong Kong — sure, total pass. West Coast? Fine. But what if they’ve flown in from Chicago, just one time zone away? You’d think that person was an incredible loser or was just making an excuse because they clearly didn’t want to hang. If we change a program like Daylight Savings Time that’s been in place for almost 60 years, we need a better reason than that.
...Overall, this is just not a close call. Eliminating DST might even be a political risk for Trump and Musk. Big, top-down-imposed changes that nobody is asking for check all the boxes for an unpopular policy. It would be a highly noticeable change that would affect Americans of all social classes. If people are used to it being bright out at 7 p.m. in the summer — whether for their kid’s softball game or long evening jogs on the beach or al fresco dining in the West Village — they’re going to be very annoyed if that gets taken away.
...So I say keep the status quo — or make only minor tweaks, like letting states opt into year-round DST, which isn’t currently allowed. The twice-annual time changes aren’t such a big burden. Year-round DST is debatable, but year-round standard time is terrible. DOGE can shove it where the sun don’t shine.
I agree, PLUS we should also argue that DSL has important energy conservation results: we obviously use significantly less energy when it light outside as, for example, we don't turn the porch light on until an
hour later. Although my grasp of DSL's history is a little fuzzy I think I recall that during WWII energy savings was a primary reason for requiring it.
Posted by: Les Margosian | December 19, 2024 at 07:25 AM