Article content

Most North Americans awoke this morning with an hour less sleep in the bank, thanks to daylight savings time (DST), which kicked in Sunday morning. Research suggests they aren’t just one-24th more irritable and cranky as a result, but more likely to suffer a heart attack (for reasons not entirely understood) and to be in a car accident (because more of us are driving to work in the dark, and while slightly more fatigued). The good news is it’s not a huge difference, and that the opposite phenomena are observed when we “fall back.” But that’s not a very good reason to stick with DST.

In fact, considering how much we take the time change for granted, the case for DST seems remarkably flimsy. Urbanites often grow up hearing that it’s all about farmers — but “that’s the complete inverse of what’s true,” Tufts University professor Michael Dowling told National Geographicin 2013. “The farmers were the only organized lobby against daylight saving in the history of the [United States].” It gives them less sunlight in which to transport their wares to market. Dairy farmers complain the cows don’t appreciate the shift in milking schedules. Saskatchewan never instituted DST at all.

The second major case for DST is energy conservation, for which it has notably been used in wartime and during the energy crisis of the 1970s. Nowadays, however, much research suggests it’s a wash: Energy savings realized in the morning are lost in the evening, or vice versa. And if there are benefits in this regard, they certainly aren’t game-changers: Residential energy use in DST-free Saskatchewan in 2012 was 0.83 gigajoules per square metre. In neighbouring Manitoba and Alberta, which sprang forward on Sunday, it was 0.82 and 1.09, respectively.