Introduction
Daylight Savings Time (DST) is a practice of advancing the clock by an hour in the summer months to allow for more daylight in the evening. The concept was first proposed by Benjamin Franklin in 1784 and has been in use in the United States since World War I as a means to save energy and increase productivity. However, not all states in the US observe DST, with five states opting out of the annual time change. This article explores the reasons behind these states’ decision and weighs the pros and cons of DST from their perspective.
The Ins and Outs of Daylight Savings Time: 5 States That Don’t Observe It
DST is a way of making better use of the available daylight by setting the clock forward by one hour in the spring and back in the fall. The idea is that less energy will be used in the evening, as people do not need to rely heavily on artificial lighting and appliances. Currently, 45 US states observe DST, with only Arizona, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands abstaining from it.
DST was originally established in the US by the Uniform Time Act of 1966, which mandated that DST begin on the last Sunday in April and end on the last Sunday in October. Since then, there have been several shifts and adjustments in how the system operates, with some states choosing to make changes to how DST is observed within their state lines.
For the non-participating states, their abstention from DST is due to a number of unique factors. While Arizona and Hawaii have always had a firm stance against DST, the other three states had previously participated in the time change before making the decision to opt-out. The following sections will delve deeper into each of these states and the reasons behind their choice.
5 States That Buck the Clock: Exploring the Abolition of Daylight Savings Time
Recent years have seen a growing effort to eliminate DST altogether. Advocates of abolishing DST argue that the gains in energy savings and productivity are negligible, while the negative effects on sleep patterns and health, as well as the economic costs associated with updating and maintaining the system, outweigh the benefits.
In March 2019, Florida Senator Marco Rubio introduced a bill called the Sunshine Protection Act, which, if approved, would make DST permanent across the country. Meanwhile, some states have gone in the opposite direction, with more than 30 states considering legislation to abolish DST altogether. Of these, Arizona, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico have signed this legislation into law, while American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands have never observed DST.
When the Clocks Fall Behind: Understanding the Why and Which of Non-Participating States
Each of the five non-participating states has its own reasons for opting out of DST. Some states cite practical considerations such as the impact of time change on farming and livestock, while others argue that the costs and benefits of DST do not outweigh the inherent disruption that the annual time change creates.
Arizona, for example, has always had a no-DST policy, with the exception of the Navajo Nation, which observes DST. This is primarily due to the state’s desert climate, which means that it is already hot enough during the afternoon hours, meaning that more daylight doesn’t add much value for residents’ quality of life. Hawaii, as an island state, has limited variation between daylight hours throughout the year and the absence of any incentive for tourists to visit at different times during the day means there is no economic benefit to altering the time.
In the case of Puerto Rico, the decision to opt-out of DST came after a 2018 plebiscite, where the vast majority of voters indicated that they wanted to keep their standard time year-round, rather than adjusting clocks twice a year.
The Pros and Cons of Daylight Savings Time: What 5 States Have To Say
Understandably, the issue of DST is a contentious one, with arguments posited both for and against it. In terms of the benefits, supporters of DST say that it can help to reduce energy consumption and lower crime rates. According to the US Department of Transportation, DST results in a savings of approximately 1.3 billion kilowatt-hours, the equivalent of powering 100,000 homes for a year. Additionally, studies have suggested that DST can reduce traffic congestion and lower the risk of car accidents.
However, detractors argue that the time change can have negative impacts on sleep patterns and health, particularly during the spring when the clock goes forward, and studies have indicated an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes during the immediate aftermath of the time change. Furthermore, critics argue that DST is counterintuitive to modern lifestyles, and with an increasing number of people working remotely, it can be disruptive to the lives of those who have to coordinate with time zones in other countries.
Each of the five non-participating states has unique reasons for their stance on DST. Hawaii, for example, has weather and geography that do not necessitate the state’s participation in DST, while American Samoa has a tropical climate that provides little variation in daylight and darkness year-round. Puerto Rico’s decision was informed largely by the opinions of its residents, while the decision in the Virgin Islands was influenced by the fact that it is a US territory and subject to federal law. According to the Governor of the Virgin Islands, the cost and complexity of having to change each of the islands from one time zone to another was prohibitive.
Beyond Time Change: 5 States That Abstain from Daylight Savings, and Why
Aside from the five non-participating states, there are other states in the US that have either abolished DST or have never participated in it. Indiana is a notable state that did not participate until 2006 when it began observing DST state-wide. Before that, the Eastern half of the state did, and the Western half did not.
Other effects of this decision are more subtle and complex, however. For example, some businesses report a spike in employee absenteeism and decreased productivity on the first Monday after the clocks are set forward as employees try to adjust to the new time, while others argue that the time change can lead to a loss of productivity, as people are less alert and focused during the first two days after the time change.
Conclusion
The debate over DST is an ongoing one, with advocates on both sides of the issue. The five non-participating states have their own unique reasons for their stance against DST, ranging from economic, cultural and practical considerations. Whether or not the abolishment of DST becomes more widespread remains to be seen, but for now, residents of these states can rest assured that they will not have to participate in the annual time change, while residents of participating states can enjoy the benefits, albeit with some potential drawbacks.