Two California lawmakers want to eliminate daylight saving time. That ticks me off | Opinion

There they go again, trying to mess with time.

After teasing us with the idea of switching to daylight saving time on a permanent basis in the state of California, politicians are doing a 180.

Two Republican lawmakers, Sen. Roger Niello of Fair Oaks and Assemblymember Tri Ta of Westminster, have introduced legislation that would permanently eliminate daylight saving time, which basically means we would say goodbye to those precious, fun-filled nights when it doesn’t get dark until 7:30 or 8 p.m. — or later.

Those extra hours of daylight are golden for people who work until 5 or 6 p.m. We can walk the dog, go for a run, play catch with the kids, have a barbecue on a weeknight, all while it’s still light out!

And now some Sacramento politicians want to take that away from us? The nerve!

Arguments pro and con

It’s one thing to “ditch the switch,” as Niello calls it..

That’s not a bad idea at all, since Californians are pretty much in agreement that they are tired of springing forward and falling back. It’s disorienting and it can take some time to get adjusted to the change.

We should pick one time and stick with it — but here’s where it gets controversial.

According to much of the medical community, “springing forward” is bad for our health.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine is especially down on DTS, only it puts it in far more scientific terms:

“An abundance of accumulated evidence indicates that the acute transition from standard time to daylight saving time incurs significant public health and safety risks, including increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events, mood disorders, and motor vehicle crashes,” the academy wrote in a position statement.

It goes on to mention circadian misalignment, which has been associated with “increased cardiovascular disease risk, metabolic syndrome and other health risks.”

Nonetheless, according to public opinion polls a substantial percentage of Americans favor DST.

In a 2022 CBS News poll, for instance, 46% preferred permanent DST, 33% wanted permanent standard time, and 21% wanted to keep switching.

The top reason reason respondents gave for preferring daylight saving time? It put them in a better mood.

I rest my case.

Marco Rubio to the rescue?

But even if California agreed to make daylight saving time permanent, it couldn’t — at least not yet.

A federal law — the Uniform Time Act of 1966 — bans states from switching to year-round DST, though it does allow states to stick with standard-time year-round.

There have been to override the Uniform Time Act. The Sunshine Protection Act, sponsored by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, would have made daylight saving time permanent throughout the nation. It passed in the Senate in 2022 but failed in the House.

Two items of note: This may be the first time I have ever agreed with Marco Rubio. And is it any wonder that we’re so divided when we can’t even agree on the time of day?

A failed DST experiment

The entire nation was on the same page, time-wise, in the early 1970s, when year-round daylight savings time was adopted as a two-year pilot program during an energy crisis.

But people hated it, mostly because they didn’t like their children having to go to school in the early morning hours when it was still dark.

That doesn’t mean permanent DST couldn’t be successful now, especially in California where early mornings generally aren’t as brutal as they are in some other parts of the country. And if we’re worried about students, start school a bit later. California already requires a late start for high schools and middle schools, to better coincide with the natural sleep cycle of teenagers. (It’s another circadian thing.)

The 30-minute solution

If that’s still not enough to win over fans of standard time, how about this? Split the difference. The next time daylight saving time rolls around, move the clock forward 30 minutes and keep it there. Permanently. No more switching back and forth. That may sound heretical, but where is it written that we can only do time changes in one-hour increments?

In case you’re wondering, there is at least one well-qualified proponent of the idea (plus random folks who like to hang out on Reddit and Quora.)

Sheldon H. Jacobson, a researcher and computer science professor proposed the 30-minute compromise in an op-ed for The Hill.

“Would everyone be happy with such a permanent change? In the short term, no,” he wrote. “However, over time, the 30-minute difference would feel negligible.”

Sounds like an elegant solution. What do you think, Sen. Rubio?