JONATHAN CHAIT NOVEMBER 9, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
[Guest post by Barron YoungSmith]
Now that the elections are over, we're hearing a lot about how President Obama should adopt simple, crowd-pleasing, populist measures that will again endear him to the middle class—like a Clinton-style foreclosure moratorium. Well, here's a smaller idea that would allow him to improve millions of Americans' lives, save money and energy, and reverse one of the lamest excesses of the Bush administration: Obama should repeal the daylight savings time change codified by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Let's revisit why this act passed. In the summer of 2005, America was facing a full-blown energy crisis, but the Republican Congress was unwilling to do anything that would substantively improve the country's energy efficiency. They wouldn't mandate improved lightbulbs. They wouldn't increase CAFE standards. But, alongside billions of dollars in handouts and tax breaks for dirty energy—and token money for boondoggles like clean coal and hydrogen fuel cells—the Frist-Hastert Congress was willing to "save energy" by shortening the portion of the year when Americans are allowed to sleep late. They did this by shifting the start and end dates for daylight savings time so that the portion of the year when it's easier to wake up is a full month shorter, and the corresponding good-lord-this-is-painful period a month longer.
There was something unsettling and creepily disproportionate about the idea that Congress couldn't muster the will to improve energy efficiency, so it voted to change time itself—but leave that aside. The rationale for the new daylight savings calendar was that it would reduce energy use by encouraging people to use less electric light, but that assumption hadn't been well tested—and a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) reveals that the policy likely encouraged Americans to use more energy by running heaters and air conditioners more than enough to offset the decreased use of light, and to spend more money doing so. Indeed, the primary beneficiaries seem to have been the retail and sporting-goods lobbies, who pushed for the bill because it makes people want to stay out later and shop or hunt. (Lobbies who opposed the bill included the Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, presumably because fewer people want to attend services before dawn, as well as the National Parent-Teacher Association.) In other words, like many other laws passed during the Bush administration, it was a sop to business that left ordinary folks holding the bag—in this case a bag lunch packed during pitch-dark late October mornings.
To be sure, monkeying with the start date for daylight savings time is not that unusual—presidents FDR, Wilson, and Nixon all enacted far-reaching time changes in an attempt to reduce energy use during a national emergency (Nixon's was the OPEC embargo). But the history of these changes is a history of overreach and retrenchment: Both FDR and Nixon extended daylight savings time throughout the entire year, while Wilson's schedule was too extreme for a country that was still largely rural and agricultural. These efforts proved so unpopular that they were soon reversed by a Congress responsive to the American public. By contrast, the time change schedules adopted by presidents Johnson and Reagan were quite moderate—they gave people a little extra daylight during the summer months while still respecting the dictates of nature, synchronizing wake-up times with the actual passage of the seasons. Because they were so reasonable, these changes stuck … at least until a desperate President Bush tried to fake his way out of yet another national emergency. If President Obama wants to do the public a solid, and roll back a bad policy in the process, he should send the time change of 2005 off into the sunset.
19 comments
Actually, observant Jewish opposition was more likely the result of making it difficult to pray in the morning before going to work as one is not allowed to say certain morning prayers until after sunrise.
- justinsrub
November 9, 2010 at 1:21pm
Repeal it.
- liberal reformer
November 9, 2010 at 1:39pm
What Justin said - but also: "They did this by shifting the start and end dates for daylight saving time so that the portion of the year when it's easier to wake up is a full month shorter, and the corresponding good-lord-this-is-painful period a month longer." I have no idea what this means. Is it hard to get up because it's summer? Or is it hard to get up because its day light saving time? Living on the east coast, I love day light saving time - you actually get to enjoy a bit of the day. What exactly is the argument against it? How exactly are your "wake up times" "synchronized" by the seasons?
- NR851651
November 9, 2010 at 1:45pm
It's harder to get up when it's dark in the morning.
- subterran
November 9, 2010 at 1:55pm
No no no. Don't change back something (the only thing?) Bush actually got right. I, and most people who live far north and/or at the Eastern edge of a time zone, quite enjoy the extra month where the sun doesn't set before 4:30pm.
- orangutan75
November 9, 2010 at 2:07pm
I think we should have a huge fight over this and there should be fillibusters and screaming elderly people complaining that government is trying to run and ruin their lives and control their wrist watches. Sarah Palin should chime in: "it's time to hand the hands of time back to the people!" I remember when Nixon reduced speed limits to 55 MPH, Carter wore short sleeves in the summer and there were energy credits. Nothing is going to do any good until the vested interests that profit off the status quo aren't profiting off the status quo.
- Nusholtz
November 9, 2010 at 3:19pm
" . . . the portion of the year when it's easier to wake up is a full month shorter, and the corresponding good-lord-this-is-painful period a month longer." With all respect, this is truly bizarre. It's no easier to get up in the winter. One's body gets used to getting up at any halfway reasonable time within a couple of days of the transition, whether the sun is just poking over the horizon or not. At 45 degrees north, a bit of remaining daylight after work is infinitely preferable.
- K_Wilson
November 9, 2010 at 3:37pm
Yes. Yes. Yes.
- NR039835
November 9, 2010 at 4:17pm
From the headline I was ready to jump on board and roll back this craziness. Sorry, but by the third paragraph I was back in the Bush Camp. So much silliness and misguided ideology. You crazies finally convinced me to keep what we have, Outlawing lightbulbs? Telling us what to drive? Go tell someone else how to live their lives.
- CRS9TNR
November 9, 2010 at 7:16pm
CRS9TNR I am not sure if you are joking, but regular lightbulbs are extemely inefficient, do you really want to pollute the world by coal powered nuclear plants just so you can use an incandescent bulb? That is just nuts. And if you like to finance Middle Eastern jihadists, then yes, use drive Hummers, but national security reasons alone are enough to get off arab oil.
- blackton
November 9, 2010 at 8:34pm
Make Daylight Savings Time the standard. I hate this business of switching clocks twice a year and I like the extra light in the evening.
- jdyer
November 10, 2010 at 12:17am
CRS9TNR: "Outlawing lightbulbs? "Telling us what to drive? "Go tell someone else how to live their lives." If we're serious about our energy problems, we have to do things differently. Obviously, if we keep doing things the same way then we'll keep having the same problems. So I'm OK with letting people use what light bulbs they want and drive what cars they want--if they're willing to pay for it through a carbon tax. If we're not willing to enact incentives, then we have to have mandates. If we're not willing to do either, then we're not serious about the problem and should just admit it.
- dsimon
November 10, 2010 at 1:45pm
jdyer, I used to say the same thing, but I wouldn't like 8:30 to 9:00 sunrises in the dead of winter. The current set-up doesn't bother me, because I usually get up at about 7:30 and that's as late as sunrise gets in Chicago under the current set-up, but it is interesting that now the latest sunrises happen not in January -- when the day is shortest -- but in November before we fall back. Early January sunrise in Chicago is 7:20, but it's 7:30 in early November. And, besides, I don't have to be at work or have kids at school at 8:00 like many others, I live close to work, unlike many others, and Chicago is at the eastern edge of the time-zone, so I can appreciate others' griping on this point. I think it's harder to haul yourself out of bed when it's still dark.
- JakeH
November 10, 2010 at 2:34pm
Yuck. Getting ready in the dark is so much easier than trying to walk your dog in the dark! Daylight Savings all year gets my vote!
- ReganaD
November 10, 2010 at 4:04pm
Regana, you don't walk your dog in the morning??
- JakeH
November 10, 2010 at 4:43pm
Actually the shift was quite expensive. Software to recognize the date changes had to be created and downloaded on every computer in the country. The IT department where I worked spent a month straightening out the mess, and we were a small company. We cannot afford to switch back. But hey! It's part of the Republican free lunch program. We can increase spending, cut revenues, and eliminate the deficit as long as we don't elect Democrats who spend but refuse to pay for it with tax cuts.
- tpinter
November 10, 2010 at 9:29pm
The paper that the article references was actually an analysis of the effect of Daylight Saving Time over the whole length, from Spring to Fall. It did this by comparing the monthly bills for some counties in Indiana before and after they switched to DST. They make some interesting points about possibly costing more because of extra cooling, but that applies largely to summer months. The extension to DST in the EPACT only added 3 weeks in the Spring and one in the Fall. My colleagues and I conducted the study for Congress on the energy savings from this extension. Our analysis found some energy savings, not a lot but some.
- hadleysw
November 10, 2010 at 9:59pm
By the way, the extension to Daylight Saving Time was added to the 2005 Energy Policy Act by Rep. Markey (D) and Rep. Upton (R), not George Bush. (http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2636&Itemid=140)
- hadleysw
November 10, 2010 at 10:04pm
Day Light time is a good thing. Gives more light in the evening.
- ecmueller
November 10, 2010 at 10:55pm