![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The U.S. House of Representatives Energy Committee voted today to recommend extending Daylight Savings Time two months - from the beginning of March until the end of November - as an effort to save oil.
They of course rejected the bill that would have actually saved oil.* But that is apparently neither here nor there.
The logic behind this daring, cost-saving measure is that people will not have to turn on their lights as early and will be awake in the darkness of evening for less time. The darkness would be shifted to the morning hours, when we are only home for a short time before going to our places of work/school - where less power will be used because it is light during business hours. (Uh, yeah. Because as soon as it's light out, offices turn off the artificial lighting. Or something.) Additionally, this is going to be good for business because people will linger downtown when it's not all dark and scary. This will save a whopping 10,000 barrels of oil a day - a brave measure not unlike cutting calories by gobbling down a large economy bag of M&Ms every day, but not eating the very last one.
But, hey, we're not here to quibble! Instead, let's assume that all of their reasoning and predictions will come true. That only leads me to the second question:
Why would we bother to go back to Standard Time at all?
Think about it: one of the reasons given for winters spent on standard time was that school children should not have to spend so much of the school year waiting for buses in the artificial darkness of Daylight Savings Time. But if Standard Time only extends from December through February, they're standing out there in the dark anyway! What difference would it make? And why not get the benefit of whatever light is out there as late into the day as possible? Why go through the exercise at all at that point?
All I can say is, I'm glad Congress is there to solve the energy crisis....
*Edit: This was a bill to commit to reducing oil consumption by 1,000,000 barrels a day. To quote:Lawmakers with automakers in their districts led the fight to defeat Waxman's proposal, arguing it was backdoor way to require U.S. mini-vans, sport utility vehicles and pick-up trucks to improve their fuel efficiency.
What a terrible idea!
They of course rejected the bill that would have actually saved oil.* But that is apparently neither here nor there.
The logic behind this daring, cost-saving measure is that people will not have to turn on their lights as early and will be awake in the darkness of evening for less time. The darkness would be shifted to the morning hours, when we are only home for a short time before going to our places of work/school - where less power will be used because it is light during business hours. (Uh, yeah. Because as soon as it's light out, offices turn off the artificial lighting. Or something.) Additionally, this is going to be good for business because people will linger downtown when it's not all dark and scary. This will save a whopping 10,000 barrels of oil a day - a brave measure not unlike cutting calories by gobbling down a large economy bag of M&Ms every day, but not eating the very last one.
But, hey, we're not here to quibble! Instead, let's assume that all of their reasoning and predictions will come true. That only leads me to the second question:
Why would we bother to go back to Standard Time at all?
Think about it: one of the reasons given for winters spent on standard time was that school children should not have to spend so much of the school year waiting for buses in the artificial darkness of Daylight Savings Time. But if Standard Time only extends from December through February, they're standing out there in the dark anyway! What difference would it make? And why not get the benefit of whatever light is out there as late into the day as possible? Why go through the exercise at all at that point?
All I can say is, I'm glad Congress is there to solve the energy crisis....
*Edit: This was a bill to commit to reducing oil consumption by 1,000,000 barrels a day. To quote:Lawmakers with automakers in their districts led the fight to defeat Waxman's proposal, arguing it was backdoor way to require U.S. mini-vans, sport utility vehicles and pick-up trucks to improve their fuel efficiency.
What a terrible idea!
