Plan B Forum

As another semi-annual (sort of) time change approaches, the old debate about whether to stick to one time all year round is revived. And, if so, whether to move permanently to standard or daylight saving time. British Columbia has just moved to adopt daylight saving time permanently, joining Yukon, which did so in 2020. BC had wanted to wait for the west coast U.S. states instead of moving unilaterally, but I guess they got impatient. Ontario has legislated a move to permanent DST as soon as Quebec and New York* do the same. We probably will wait, because being on a different time from our neighbours would be more disruptive here.

Critics of permanent DST point to the negative health effects and to the prospect of schoolchildren walking in the dark when sunrise doesn't come until 9AM in December and January. Critics of permanent standard time point to the wasted daylight of having the sun rise in June at 4AM. I have usually leaned toward permanent standard time, but would accept permanent DST if that were the route chosen (so what if I sleep in until 9 on cold winter mornings).

But then it came to me that King Solomon had the right idea (toward a different end in this case) - let's just split this baby down the middle. A permanent time exactly halfway between standard and daylight saving time. The differences at the summer and winter extremes would be far less noticeable. And everyone gets a half hour more daylight when they want it, whether it be winter morning or summer evening.

This method would almost definitely require near uniformity within current time zones for it to work. (If you doubt this, ask any mainland Canadian how easy it is to coordinate anything with someone on Newfoundland.) But I don't see that it has every been considered before in this context. Worth a shot, yes?





*Interesting that Michigan wasn't included, given the amount of bilateral trade between us. Always the bastard child, I guess.

I know I am in the minority, but I actually enjoy the time change, and having the daylight during the hours that most people are awake. Sure, there are places where it doesn't make sense--like DST at the western edges of the time zones where the sun wouldn't set until very lat, but I personally think the minor inconvenience is worth it.

And FWIW, if you don't think having daylight during these time is important, why not just have a single time zone for the entire country; those on the east coast may have to begin work in the dark, but what's the problem? Those working outside might start later, but does the numerical time designation even matter?

That works for China, and the US military have been doing it for many decades--they call it Zulu Time. (the same number is called Greenwich time for civilians) Simultaneity for meetings is easier to arrange, and local time is whatever the locals find convenient. One adjusts to using two different references. Workers who have to contribute to 24/7 services already go to work or come home in the dark. Those who move around a lot know know that bungee man of the poor child in the dark waiting for their school busses already happens when you see the difference between the Eastern and Western edge of the same time zones. We have adjusted and think it is quaint when talking on the phones for business from Wilmington Delaware to associates in Barcelona or Shanghai or Australia or Los Angeles. Farmers have always lived by when the livestock chooses to need their attention. Dairy cows have their own time system.