Sunrise at 9:15. Oh my! (Part 1 of 4)

John stopped by again the other day.  I was sitting on the patio when he sauntered in through the side gate and came over to rub against my leg.  If you haven’t yet been introduced, John is the big orange cat that lives at the end of the cul-de-sac down the street.  I mentioned to him that I was pondering the virtues and vices of standard time and daylight savings time.  He looked at me quizzically, so I explained that there had been debate in Congress recently about remaining on daylight savings time all year long rather than switching from one to the other each spring and fall.  There doesn’t seem to be any interest in keeping standard time all year long for some reason, even though that’s what we started with long before daylight savings time was first introduced in 1918.  John didn’t say anything.  He just sat and stared at me, then yawned, stood up, flicked his tail, and strode over to one of the flower beds to see if there might be a tasty rodent or two with whom he might make his acquaintance.  I suspect from his reaction that he doesn’t care much.

The bill that was passed in the House earlier this year is called the Sunshine Protection Act, a laughable title that implies far greater importance than the act deserves.  Apparently, members of Congress want us to believe that the legislation would somehow preserve the amount of sunshine we receive lest there be less of it should the act not gain passage.  I think we can safely say that there is no need to protect the amount of sunshine we receive; that’s pretty much been a constant for as long as anyone can remember and will remain so long after we’re all gone.

In proposing that the country remain on daylight savings time all year long rather than switching back and forth every spring and fall, the bill would allow us to avoid the inconveniences of changing our time pieces and, more importantly, our internal clocks twice each year.  That’s all, nothing more.  I think we can safely predict that, no matter what Congress decides, a majority of voters will be dissatisfied.  (Congress passed a similar bill in 1974 because of all the griping, and then quickly repealed it because of, again, all the griping.)

When I refer to “the country”, of course, I am referring to the “lower forty-eight”.  Hawaii is in the Hawaii-Aleutian time zone and is content to remain on standard time year-round.  No need to upset that.  Despite its immense size, the entirety of Alaska is in one time zone and retains Alaska standard time year-round.  When much of the state has various shades of complete daylight for six months of the year and equal hues of total darkness the other six, daylight savings time makes no sense, so no need to change what they are doing either.  The other standard time holdout is Arizona.  For whatever reason most Arizonans maintain standard time year-round while all the rest of us switch back and forth every spring and fall.  Whether they would conform with the rest of us and switch to permanent daylight savings time remains to be seen.

That leaves the remainder of the lower forty-eight.  How one might feel about permanent daylight savings time probably depends on where one resides.  Sunrise for those living near the eastern boundary of the time zone arrives about an hour earlier than for those living near the extreme western part of the same time zone.  So, for example, sunrise in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on New Year’s Day with standard time is at 7:21, sunset at 4:28.  With permanent daylight savings time sunrise would be at 8:21, sunset at 5:28; almost everyone going to work or school just as the eastern skies have a glimmer of gray, yellow, and orange and going home when the sun is about to set.  Of course, Milwaukee is on the eastern edge of the central time zone.  For the folks in Pierre, South Dakota, on the western edge of the central time zone, or for those in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on the opposite shore of Lake Michigan from Milwaukee and on the western edge of the eastern time zone, sunrise with daylight savings time would be at about 9:15 in the morning, sunset at around 6:15.  Sunrise at 9:15.  Oh my!  Most would be going to work or school in total darkness just so they could enjoy a little more of that protected sunshine when they head home late in the day.  I suspect very few parents would be thrilled with having their children standing at a bus stop in total darkness just to gain a few rays of sunlight in the evening.

The effect is similar farther south, if not as dramatic.  The northern cities in the previous example receive a daily dose of about nine hours of daylight.  On New Year’s Day, Mobile, Alabama, and El Paso, Texas, receive about ten hours of sunlight, so sunrise is earlier, sunset later.  Sunrise in El Paso would be about 8:50, which sounds better than 9:15, but would still have most folks going to work or kids waiting for the school bus in the dark, which was one of the major gripes that forced a repeal of the measure in 1974.  Even sunny Miami, Florida, with ten and a half hours of sunlight would experience sunrise a few minutes after eight o’clock in the morning on New Years Day if daylight savings time was permanent.

Have attitudes changed in fifty years?  I suspect not.  The total amount of sunlight we receive is the same now as it was in 1974.  If the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law, the number of complaints will likely be about the same now as then.  Had daylight savings time never been “invented”, we would all be on standard time all year round and probably would have no complaints.  In a sense, any controversy concerning daylight savings time, permanent or otherwise, is another example of government trying to “improve” something that was best left alone.  However, like so many other government programs, once it was introduced, some liked it, some did not, some liked it part of the year, some thought they would like it all of the time.

And like so many other government programs, I suspect that no matter what Congress decides, permanent daylight savings time or the status quo, there will be those who don’t like the decision.  Possibly most people will find something about it that they don’t like.  Frankly, it’s a little surprising (and disappointing) that Congress took up the measure.  Maybe our representatives should spend their protected sunlight hours resolving more important issues like, say, the forty trillion-dollar debt.