This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/opinion/the-argument-daylight-saving-time.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
We Need to Talk About the Dark Side of Daylight Saving Time We Need to Talk About the Dark Side of Daylight Saving Time
(6 days later)
On Nov. 7, most of us will fall back an hour and restart the decades-old discussion of why we shift time twice a year.On Nov. 7, most of us will fall back an hour and restart the decades-old discussion of why we shift time twice a year.
A quick reminder: In spring, we “spring forward” to Daylight Time, giving us daylight well into the evening. But this Sunday, we’ll be back to Standard Time. Which is nice for bright mornings. But it means it’s dark before dinner. The clock change is cumbersome and confusing, and only about 70 countries in the world follow it. Even in the United States there’s no cohesion around Daylight Time; Arizona and Hawaii don’t make the switch. A quick reminder: In spring, we “spring forward” to daylight time, giving us daylight well into the evening. But this Sunday, we’ll be back to standard time. Which is nice for bright mornings. But it means it’s dark before dinner. The clock change is cumbersome and confusing, and only about 70 countries in the world follow it. Even in the United States there’s no cohesion around daylight time: Arizona and Hawaii don’t make the switch.
And it’s something politicians of all parties can agree on. Senators Marco Rubio and Ed Markey have pushed to make Daylight Time permanent. The Sunshine Protection Act was introduced in 2018, and 19 states have already passed similar legislation to pave the way for year-round daylight savings, should Congress eventually allow it. But some scientists have their reservations, given how Daylight Time affects our body clocks and sleeping patterns. And it’s something politicians of all parties can agree on. Senators Marco Rubio and Ed Markey have pushed to make daylight time permanent. The Sunshine Protection Act was introduced in 2018, and 19 states have passed similar legislation to pave the way for year-round daylight saving time, should Congress eventually allow it. But some scientists have their reservations, given how daylight time affects our body clocks and sleeping patterns.
[You can listen to this episode of “The Argument” on Apple, Spotify or Google or wherever you get your podcasts.][You can listen to this episode of “The Argument” on Apple, Spotify or Google or wherever you get your podcasts.]
This week, Jane Coaston digs into the debate with Dustin Buehler, a lecturer at the Willamette University College of Law and general counsel for Oregon’s governor, and Dr. Joseph Takahashi, the chair of the neuroscience department at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.This week, Jane Coaston digs into the debate with Dustin Buehler, a lecturer at the Willamette University College of Law and general counsel for Oregon’s governor, and Dr. Joseph Takahashi, the chair of the neuroscience department at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Mr. Buehler thinks Daylight Time should be permanent, while Dr. Takahashi says Standard Time is the way to go. Mr. Buehler thinks daylight time should be permanent, while Dr. Takahashi says standard time is the way to go.
“Daylight savings year-round could save lives, improve sleep and other benefits,” in The Conversation in 2019 “5 Ways Life Would Be Better if It Were Always Daylight Saving Time” in The Conversation in 2019
“Why We Should Abolish Daylight Saving Time” in Michigan Medicine, March 2021“Why We Should Abolish Daylight Saving Time” in Michigan Medicine, March 2021
Listen to “Matters of Time,” an episode of 99% Invisible Listen to “Matters of Time,” an episode of “99% Invisible”
(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)(A full transcript of the episode will be available midday on the Times website.)
Thoughts? Email us at argument@nytimes.com or leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324. We want to hear what you’re arguing about with your family, your friends and your frenemies. (We may use excerpts from your message in a future episode.)Thoughts? Email us at argument@nytimes.com or leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324. We want to hear what you’re arguing about with your family, your friends and your frenemies. (We may use excerpts from your message in a future episode.)
By leaving us a message, you are agreeing to be governed by our reader submission terms and agreeing that we may use and allow others to use your name, voice and message.By leaving us a message, you are agreeing to be governed by our reader submission terms and agreeing that we may use and allow others to use your name, voice and message.
“The Argument” is produced by Phoebe Lett, Elisa Gutierrez and Vishakha Darbha, and edited by Sarah Geis; fact-checking by Kate Sinclair; music and sound design by Isaac Jones; engineering by Carole Sabouraud; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin.“The Argument” is produced by Phoebe Lett, Elisa Gutierrez and Vishakha Darbha, and edited by Sarah Geis; fact-checking by Kate Sinclair; music and sound design by Isaac Jones; engineering by Carole Sabouraud; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin.