Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Couldn't they have waited a week??

Couldn’t the powers that be have waited one more week before switching to daylight saving time? I have to wake the chickens up at 7 a.m. to feed them before I go to work.

It’s still almost dark (see today’s photo) at 7:30 a.m. when I leave the house. The kids are waiting for school buses in the dark (again). In another week daylight would be pushing through around 7 a.m. and the kids wouldn’t be standing in the dark. It would be light enough to take a morning photo of something other than a sunrise.

So why make the change last weekend, when it could be done a week later and more or less correspond to the spring equinox, not to mention corresponding better with the morning light? The explanation has nothing to do with the reality of darkness in the morning. It’s because in 2007 when the length of daylight saving time was extended, they simply added four weeks to the previous length, two weeks earlier in March and two weeks later at the end. The idea is that extending daylight saving time saves energy, but the argument is a bit flawed since I need every light in the house on in the morning again, when last week I didn’t.


Elora said...

Couldn't agree more, Carolyn!! It is such a pest, especially for those who work outside the farm. The animals continue as usual and they didn't recognize the difference on the clock face!!


Cathy said...

Better yet, lets us skip this daylight saving joke and my sleep won't get screw up anymore. part of me likes the idea but the rest says enough.

Carolyn H said...

Elora: I only have the chickens to take care of, and they can't figure out why I'm feeding them in the near-dark now.

Cathy: i'm starting to think we should ditch daylight saving time altogether, too. No offense to Ben Franklin, who proposed it in the first place.