In the not so distance past, Congress has decided to change daylight savings time. Their thought is that with more "daylight", we will conserve more energy.
I would venture to guess we'll pay more money to fix the myriad of issues this horrible idea than we'll save in energy bills. I've seen estimates range anywhere from .5% to 5% savings. Yes, on the large scale, that's a fairly hefty amount of oil saved. However, think about this:
- All computers must now be updated to account for these changes
- Not everyone gives a rat's ass about DST, like Arizona.
- Every piece of software in the world that does any sort of scheduling must now be updated. This includes everything from postal applications to airline ticket scheduling.
- It throws off current livestock schedules for things like milking.
- It doesn't save anywhere near enough money to really justify the wide-scale changes needed to make this sort of thing work.
I really hope someone pulls their head out of their ass on this one and realizes it's a stupid idea. I'm absolutely shocked that this one went under the radar for so long. So I wrote my Congress Critters just as fast as I could when I found out about this. Hopefully you'll do the same, assuming you care.
Rant Ended. :-P
I gotta agree with you. What a dumb idea! The costs of making the change will MORE than outweigh the proposed "savings". I heard Canada is already considering making corresponding changes so as to stay in step with the States. But here, it would still be dark that early in the morning is the spring and fall for the extended periods. So it wouldn't give us anything. Politicians can be such morons!
If there were to make any change to DST, I wish they'd get rid of it. It's a hassle.
-- SirG3
I don't really *mind* what we have now, but I don't want it extended simply because I don't think it's a smart economical decision. If it was this way from the get-go, then I wouldn't object to it. But to change it now seems ludicrous.
That's so ridiculous.
But all of those are one-time expenses. The energy savings would be recurring. They are also expenses for things that aren't rapidly depleting non-renewable material. Pumping money into the economy is not always a bad thing (and yes, that money usually comes from business and individuals). Even thought the Y2K bug cost us billions (or more?), the economy at the time continued to steam right along.
I'm not saying I agree with the idea, but I won't dismiss it out of hand either. It might be interesting to investigate how this energy savings is calculated and whether it is real or not.
Stop coming up with logical, thoughtful responses to my knee-jerk reactions. Meanie. :-P
Um... "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"?
Sweet Jesus.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05210/545823.stm