As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that President George W. Bush signed in August 2005, DST begins on the second Sunday of March in 2007 instead of in April. It ends on the first Sunday of November. It is believed this change will help save precious energy.
If this DST strategy is such a winning energy saver, why are we waiting so long to implement it when we clearly need energy savings now? For one thing, DST takes its toll on the transportation and telecommunications industries when schedules have to be shifted. The airline industry, alone, claims that it will cost millions of dollars to change schedules. Schools have concerns about children's safety while waiting for buses in the dark. Gadgets and computers may need reprogramming so that the correct time adjustments appear. In short, it takes a great deal of coordination to get the ball rolling and that takes time.
Is changing the clocks back and forth an hour outdated and/or foolish?
2007-03-04 13:29:35 · 5 answers · asked by marnefirstinfantry 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
I do believe it is outdated and foolish. I really can't see either way how it'll help save energy. I'm sure someone is getting their pocket lined by this new act, instead of them focusing on real issues, like getting help for the elderly for prescriptions, or solving the problem with so many able bodied people AND illegal immigrants riding the welfare system.
2007-03-07 12:44:32 · answer #1 · answered by cajunrescuemedic 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As far as real energy usage goes to me it is neither better nor worse as I work from home and use about the same energy. But as far as remembering to set the clock, once when I was a Postal Worker I went to work two hours early as I set the clock in the wrong direction!
So I'd say on a scale of 0-10 with ten being the maximum nuisance, it's about a 3 for me personally.
The original concept was to add daylight hours to famers' harvest schedules to allow them to finish without the same degree of spoilage due to lack of workers at the last minute.
It has, however, in my opinion, lost its logical reason for being used - namely, that it actually saves anything when you sum up the gains/losses for various industries. In fact, as some have stated earlier, it is likely that it just winds up increasing the cost of goods and services.
By the way - check it out - there are actually about 7 months of Daylight Savings Time and only 5 of Standard. So maybe they need to re-label DST: "Politically correct Government Interference Time" and Standard Time: "Real time before bureaucrats messed things up". Would suit me!
2007-03-05 14:33:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wish they'd leave it the way it is. I want more light at the end of the day during winter, not days futher foreshortened by falling back and hour.
And how much money does this cost us. How many accidents on the road occur due to a radically changed sleep cycle. No one will talk about that.
2007-03-04 21:33:45 · answer #3 · answered by mitchell2020 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am with you 100%, it is a major annoyance. I think it would be better for a business or government agency etc. to change their hours instead of making this more complicated than it needs to be. Leave the clocks alone!
2007-03-04 21:35:11 · answer #4 · answered by wageslave 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If moving the clock is such a good idea, why move it back? Stupid outmoded inconvenience.
2007-03-04 21:37:54 · answer #5 · answered by jinoturistica 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋