From my Soapbox: Extended daylight-saving time will not live up to expectations

Daylight-saving time is a traditional annoyance most people take for granted because we have to change our clocks or end up late or early for an entire day twice a year. “Spring forward” and “fall back” are mnemonic sayings we learned sometime in school. According to a Congresssional report written by Heidi G. Yacker, the federal government has been regulating time since the end of World War I in 1918 with the passage of the Standard Time Act, which created the time zones we know today from railroad standardizations that have been used since the late 19th century. Part of this act was daylight-saving time. It was repealed because of unpopularity just a year later by Congress. The report also explains the reason for this change to make daylight longer into the evening during the summer was to make more time for outdoor recreation, so the longer summer daylight would not be wasted. Daylight-saving time would again become part of U.S. policy during World War II, and after it was left to the states and local governments to decide if it would be used. This probably created quite a mess in many areas of the country where the time would change frequently between states and even municipalities. Daylight-saving time became federally regulated again in 1966 by The Uniform Time Act, ending the confusion of allowing states and municipalities to regulate themselves. The revisions in 1986 set daylight-saving time for the first Sunday in April through the last Sunday in October. The recent Energy Policy Act of 2005 paved the way for the new, longer system of daylight-saving time, from the second Sunday in March to the first Sunday in November.The reason posed for making this change was primarily related to energy use. The basic theory is less electricity would be used during peak nighttime hours and would increase some morning energy consumption. If the savings in nighttime usage is greater than morning usage, then energy would be saved. According to a report done by the Department of Transportation in 1975, there would be minimal effects on energy uses if daylight-saving time was extended. The report was later restudied and found to not contain significant, if any energy savings in a report issue by congress in 1998. Additionally, these sentiments are echoed by Craig Stevens, press secretary for Department of Energy in a “Time Magazine” article on March 6.“The jury on the potential national energy-savings of extending daylight saving time is still out,” he told the magazine. However, some groups like the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy state on their Web site that Americans can save a good deal of money with the extended daylight-saving time. The country could save $4.4 billion by 2020 and also cut greenhouse gas emissions. Congressional supporters of this change like Rep. Edward Markey and Rep. Fred Upton cited energy savings, reduction in crime and traffic fatalities, more leisure time and increased economic activity as possible effects of the extension. While it will be nice to have more recreation time and some boost to the economy, the energy consumption savings as Professor Michael Downing of Tufts University, author of “The Annual Madness of Daylight Savings Time,” points out is probably none at all. It is probably best to be conservative about the environmental impacts of such a change until it can be actually studies over time and weighed in with all the other factors like economic impact and crime. As long as the government keeps the change on a weekend and the mnemonic device to remember when to turn your clocks, I am just happy to walk out of my late afternoon classes and see sun instead of darkness. Jeremy Weber is a senior Political Science major from Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif. He is the Arts Editor and a four-year