Daylight Saving Time (DST) has been a hot topic now for years. Numerous voices on the political, business, and scientific fronts have railed against its imposition, stating negative consequences to not only health, but economic outcomes.
Everyone knows the drill - spring forward, fall back. That time of the year when you get an extra hour in bed, or you lose one. Apart from the obvious benefit of fewer disruptions to ones’ sleep, what are the real implications of this enforced time travel we are forced to ensure twice a year, and is it really worth it?
At present around 71 countries apply DST, which was formally introduced back in 1918 to extend daylight in the evening with the intention of reducing energy consumption required for lighting, and giving people an extra hour on the golf course or to enjoy their hobby of collecting bugs. I mean this quite literally.
Golf and bugs
George Hudson, an entomologist based in New Zealand, proposed an early version of DST in 1895, advocating for a two-hour clock adjustment to maximize evening daylight hours available for his specific pursuit of collecting insects. While Hudson is usually credited with "inventing" DST, the concept was popularized by a guy called William Willett, a British builder. Willett published the influential pamphlet "The Waste of Daylight" in 1907. He proposed a more complex system involving four incremental 20-minute advancements during successive Sundays in April, and their reversal in September. Thankfully Willet’s preferred approach was not adopted. Willett’s primary aims were to increase opportunities for recreation, such as playing golf, and to generate an estimated saving of £2.5 million in lighting costs. Willett, however, did not live to see the policy enacted, having died in 1915.
So, let’s say that we agree on the fact that the origins of DST are quite odd and very specific. What are its real-world effects and is there any benefit whatsoever in applying DST? And if not, why do we continue this odd practice year after year and debate its benefits ad nauseum?
The truth is we have DST because we have DST - not because anyone wants or needs it. “It seemed like a good idea at the time” is the kind of thing a small boy might say when asked why he stuck his finger into an electrical socket. The same thing applies to DST.
Despite repeated attempts to do away with DST both US and EU policymakers can’t seem to take a decision, even though it has been clearly proven that DST is not only bad for human health outcomes, but also a huge waste of time and money that creates confusion, irritation and lost opportunities two times per year, every year.
And when you consider the non-DST nations around the globe having to deal with these ‘odd neighbors’ you begin to question why we persist with it. I’m expecting comments from golfers and bug collectors in the comments section below.
Energy use
The United States officially adopted DST under the Standard Time Act of 1918 with the intention of reducing energy consumption.
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) definitively undermines the original energy-saving assertion. The 2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) found that electricity consumption specifically for lighting accounts for only about 6% of total residential electricity use. So that’s debunked.
What about health implications?
Recent medical research has moved beyond anecdotal observations to establish chronic and acute health risks associated with the annual time changes, specifically citing the disruption of the body's natural 24-hour biological cycle, the circadian rhythm.
The implications include:
- Mental health problems, including depression and cognitive issues.
- Slowed metabolism and subsequent weight gain.
- Increased incidence of cluster headaches.
- Elevated risk for developing or worsening existing conditions, including cardiovascular disease and digestive diseases.
Why not change it then?
Well, they have tried, God love them. Our dear leaders seem unable to make a decision. In the US the current Secretary of State, Marco Rubio’s Sunshine Protection Act, which aimed to make DST year-round, passed the Senate through unanimous consent in 2022 but stalled in the House and remains stuck in policymaker mud to this day. Although numerous states, such as Oklahoma, have passed conditional legislation to "lock the clock" to permanent DST, these laws remain inoperative without a change to federal statute. This reflects a political desire for change that is institutionally constrained by the need for federal uniformity. Perhaps President Trump can sign an Executive Order fixing the clocks forever? It must be worth a Nobel Prize or two at the very least?
Similarly, in the EU, political gridlock and fear of disagreement amongst Member States has also led to political inertia. Following overwhelming support by the European Parliament in 2019 (410 votes in favor) for a proposal to eliminate seasonal clock changes, the directive stopped moving forward in the European Council in 2021. The reason for the impasse is not political opposition to abolition itself, but practical concerns related to implementation logistics and the resulting coordination challenges. Coordination has never been the strong point of the EU Commission or Council for that matter.
Opponents fear that allowing each Member State to choose individually between permanent "Summertime" (DST) or permanent "Standard Time" (ST) would create a “patchwork” of time zones across the continent. This fragmentation is seen as a direct threat to the integrity of the European Single Market, potentially disrupting cross-border business, travel, and synchronized operations. As a result, the Commission has signaled that it may withdraw the stalled proposal by 2025, confirming the prevailing viewpoint that the stability of synchronized time change across the block outweighs the cost of maintaining the practice. We the people beg to differ.
What could replace DST?
Let’s take a look at a time system that actually works on a global level already: Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). It’s used by global airlines as the standard by which everything operates within the industry and is also known as Zulu Time. All critical functions, including air traffic control clearances, flight planning, and weather reporting, are calculated and executed based on UTC, ensuring operations remain constant regardless of local clock shifts or time zone crossings.
The adherence to UTC proves that for complex, time-sensitive global systems, temporal uniformity is technologically superior to local daylight preference. Airlines manage the DST change by adjusting passenger-facing local departure and arrival times, and by modifying pilot rest periods to comply with federal safety requirements, but the core operational clock remains fixed.
The vast majority of the global population resides in nations that do not observe DST. These include highly populous nations such as India (which operates on UTC+5:30) and China (which uses a single time zone, UTC+8). Most of Africa, Japan, and South Korea also maintain fixed time zones. Within the United States, Hawaii, most of Arizona (excluding the Navajo Nation), and U.S. territories like Guam and Puerto Rico also forgo the time shift.
The coexistence of DST-observing and non-observing zones creates what one might call “temporal instability," adding recurring administrative overhead to international business operations. The annual shift causes a periodic fluctuation in the time difference, known as the "time delta." And this costs us money, time and frustration.
A logistical nightmare
And while the airline industry has their time zones fixed, other transport industries do not. Rail networks, particularly domestic and high-speed rail, face distinct challenges because their schedules must prioritize localized, fixed-interval timetables for passenger convenience. This dependence on local time forces complex, biannual operational workarounds.
The perceived value of Daylight Saving Time in the 21st century is undermined by a lot of evidence spanning health, energy, economic cost, and logistical confusion. The historical impetus for DST - energy savings via reduced illumination - is obsolete, and the practice now correlates negative public health outcomes due to systemic circadian misalignment.
The main obstacle to abolition is political and regulatory. The widespread desire to eliminate clock changes is juxtaposed by the perceived high regulatory risk of time zone fragmentation within large, integrated markets like the EU and the U.S. This paradox forces governing bodies to prioritize temporal coordination stability over optimal public health policy and a more fluid commercial existence.
So perhaps the next time the Head of the EU Commission and the US President sit down for tea and biscuits together to talk tariffs, the subject of a global move to Zulu Time should be on the agenda. It appears to be what the public want, it is good for them and good for business. A move to UTC would not only improve public health, it would also improve our economic outlook.
Infrastructure planning and public-facing scheduling (including digital calendars and transport systems) should formally adopt the operational model utilized by the global aviation sector. Requiring a clear display of both local time and fixed Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) would remove the friction caused by fluctuating time differentials with non-DST regions. This would ensure temporal consistency and mitigate the logistical overhead currently plaguing international commerce.
Let’s face it - time travel is not really that much fun.