To change of an hour confuses many people around the world. Twice a year, the clocks move forward or backward, a ritual that disrupts our routines and our perception of time. But why does this practice exist and what are its historical roots?
The story brings us to the end of the 19th century, where the idea of changing the time to better take advantage of natural light began to germinate. Moving the clocks forward during the summer months reduced energy consumption by using less artificial lighting. This also served to harmonize working hours with sunlight hours, thereby increasing productivity in several sectors, notably agriculture.
The economic benefits of the time change
The economy has long been the pillar justifying this measure. Saving energy was the main advantage put forward by supporters of the time change. These savings were considered significant enough to justify disrupting the time dial twice annually.
However, with the evolution of technologies and energy consumption patterns, many are questioning the current relevance of these savings. Some experts emphasize that the gain in electrical energy could be marginal compared to the disadvantages linked to this change.
Impact on health and well-being
Neglecting the impact of the time change on health would be a mistake. The modification the time can alter our internal clock and cause sleep problems, stress or even more serious health problems in certain individuals.
Circadian rhythm disorders can lead to a loss of concentration and an increased risk of accidents. The change to daylight saving time, and in particular the loss of an hour of sleep that accompanies it, has been linked to an increase in road accidents as well as heart problems.
The children and older people are particularly sensitive to these changes. Their sleep cycles may be disrupted, leading to irritability and difficulty concentrating.
Social and cultural justifications
Activities socio-cultural organizations take advantage of summer time. Prolonged evenings in natural light encourage tourism, outdoor leisure and consumption in establishments open late.
A whole industry, particularly that of tourism, follows this seasonal rhythm. Restaurants, cinemas, and even amusement parks benefit from this extension of daytime hours to accommodate more visitors.
Current debates around the time change
If there is indeed a constancy, is that the time change has never stopped being debated. The balance between advantages and disadvantages is constantly weighed by governments and citizens.
The environment gradually enters this calculation. Some studies suggest that changing the time, by encouraging people to consume more in the evening, can increase carbon dioxide emissions, contrary to one of the initial objectives which was to reduce energy consumption.
Questioning of this practice is palpable across the globe. Some countries have chosen to abandon the time change. Others continue to debate whether it should be abolished or retained, often with arguments passionately held on both sides.
The international dimension of the time change
Harmonization is crucial in a globalized world where communications and commerce continue to intensify. The time change must be coordinated between countries to avoid confusion and maintain a certain uniformity, particularly in economic zones sharing the same commercial rhythms.
The challenge lies in the fact that the need to change time or not can vary considerably from one region to another due to differences in latitude, lifestyle and economic activity.
Should we continue to change the time?
The calling into question of the time change is all the more acute as the priorities of our time have evolved. Public health, environmental protection and the rationalization of energy use are pushing us to reconsider the merits of this practice.
Explore alternatives such as adopting summer time or winter time permanently are part of the considerations. This would require studying the impact of such a choice on different levels: economic, health, social and environmental.
Faced with these multiple dimensions, the debate remains open. The decision to maintain or not the time change must be based on rigorous analyzes and a desire to meet the needs of a changing society. The future of our clock hands remains undecided, but one thing is certain – the subject will continue to be a fertile area of discussion for citizens and decision-makers.
