Ever since Congress passed the Standard Time Act in 1918, daylight saving time has been the subject of controversy.
With the U.S. House of Representatives passing a law this year that would make it year-round, that controversy continues.
In fact, a panel of Ohio economists is split on whether the proposal’s economic benefits will outweigh the harms. They also were skeptical that it would improve Ohioans’ health.
The bill, the Sunshine Protection Act, awaits action by the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee. As they weigh the matter, its members have some history to look to.
The arguments around extending daylight saving through the winter are fairly straightforward:
Adding more daylight at the end of short winter days encourages people to get out and do things like exercise, shop, and go out to eat. And by not forcing people to spring forward and fall back each year, their sleep cycles are more consistent so they enjoy all the benefits of being better rested.
On the other side of the ledger, more evening daylight means dark mornings in which schoolchildren and other commuters are in greater danger.
During a previous try at permanent daylight saving time, images of kids standing at pitch-dark bus stops turned out to be a deal-killer.
Amid an energy crisis after the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, President Richard Nixon signed a law making daylight saving permanent in the hope that people would use less electricity in the evenings.
However, Newsweek reports, stories of kids using flashlights to get to the bus stop and darkness-related accidents dominated news coverage, significant energy savings didn’t materialize, popular support collapsed, and the measure was quickly repealed.
When 15 Ohio economists were surveyed this month about the wisdom of the latest attempt to make daylight saving year-round, they were deeply divided.
When Scioto Analysis asked them whether the current clock-changing arrangement hurts the state economy, seven agreed, six disagreed and one was uncertain.
In the comments section of the survey, Bill LaFayette of Regionomics said the disruption that comes with changing the clocks creates economic costs.
“The big impact comes from throwing off people’s circadian rhythm when the time changes,” he wrote. “There are more traffic crashes, more strokes and heart attacks, and errors at work that could have financial implications.”
But Kevin Egan of the University of Toledo said the economic effects would be marginal either way.
“The benefits and costs about balance out and whether you are for it or against primarily will come down to: Do you want an extra hour of daylight in the morning in the winter or at night in the winter?” he wrote.
“In other words, are you a ‘morning person’ or not? However, an additional factor is that there is a cost of switching the time twice per year with some studies showing a small increase in car accidents after Daylight Saving Time due to the hour adjustment and also small health impacts.”
The economists were even more ambivalent when asked how permanent daylight saving would affect Ohioans’ health and quality of life. Two said it would help, five said it would hurt and the rest were uncertain.
Jonathan Andreas of Bluffton University said we should choose between permanent daylight saving time or permanent “daylight wasting” time, so that clock changes are eliminated. And he suggested a way to help school kids if daylight saving is made permanent.
“The additional morning darkness of permanent (daylight saving time) is potentially a bit problematic for early risers such as kids commuting to schools which already begin way too early in the morning — it is already hurting their health, particularly in western Ohio!” he wrote.
“But this could be easily solved — schools should start an hour later! That would help boost learning and test scores, especially for high school students who do particularly poorly so early in the morning!”
This story is republished from the Ohio Capital Journal under a Creative Commons license. View the original article.
