The researcher from the Department of Economics, Josep Maria Arauzo, reflects on the clocks going back. He believes that a change is need at European-level to address problems that call into question the energy savings that are the main reason for changing the time

Putting the clocks forward or back is a practice familiar to everyone, but few are aware of why it is done and what its implications are. Specifically, it occurs twice a year: the first is the switch to daylight saving time, which takes place on the last Sunday in March when the clocks are set forward one hour (02:00 becomes 03:00), and the second is the switch to standard time, which happens on the last Sunday in October, when the clocks are set back one hour (03:00 becomes 02:00).

The reasons for this change stem from a desire to save energy by making the most of daylight hours, that is, by adjusting the clocks to reduce the number of hours when artificial light is needed. Although there were various proposals throughout history to bring in this adjustment, it wasn’t until World War I that the time change was first implemented in some European countries (to save energy during the conflict). It became more widespread after the oil crisis of the 1970s, initially in a non-harmonious way and then in subsequent years in a more coordinated manner across all EU member states. However, the seasonal time change is not without criticism, and in recent years many voices have pointed to its drawbacks and called for its elimination.

Among the drawbacks of the time change highlighted by experts are the health impacts and the body’s difficulty in adapting to the change, which is especially common among children and the elderly and which causes sleep disturbances (in fact, these are similar, but on a smaller scale, to jet lag). Other drawbacks include not being in line with the rest of the world (as not all countries follow this practice), adaptation costs (for example, in transport schedules), the functioning of some farms (where animals do not easily adjust to the new schedules), and reduced productivity, as some studies have pointed out. The main drawback, however, comes from doubts about whether the time change (in its current form) really has an impact on energy consumption and whether, consequently, it is necessary or not, especially considering the aforementioned inconveniences.

In any case, however, the time change cannot be separated from the distribution of time zones across the EU. Specifically, there are currently four time zones in Europe: the first includes Iceland, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Portugal; the second extends from Spain to North Macedonia and covers all central European countries; the third spans from the Baltic to Cyprus; and the fourth includes Russia, Belarus, and Turkey. If we look at the geographic distribution of these time zones, it is not hard to see several examples of countries whose allocation to a specific zone seems illogical. In this regard, for example, Great Britain and Spain do not share the same time zone, even though geographically they are one above the other. However, the most notable inefficiency is in the vastness of the Central European Time zone (CET), which covers an area from Galicia in the far west to North Macedonia in the far east. These two areas, for instance, are separated by about 2,400 km in a straight line, and while the sun currently rises at 08:52 in Finisterre (Galicia), in Strumica (North Macedonia), it rises more than two hours earlier, at 06:42. Both locations, however, share the same time zone, and when it comes time to turn on the lights because of the setting sun, in Strumica, this happens at 17:48, while in Finisterre, the day stretches for another two hours, until 19:53.

It is clear that the time change and time zones cannot be altered independently, and that change is needed at the European level to address the obvious dysfunctions that currently call into question the main motivation for implementing the time change, which is none other than to save energy. This is particularly true given that technological conditions have changed significantly since the time change was first introduced. Nowadays lighting systems such as LED bulbs are much more efficient, lighting is no longer the main energy consumer due to the widespread use of all kinds of electronic devices (which are in use at all hours), working hours have changed and now include teleworking, and the widespread use of climate control systems (heating and air conditioning) may even counteract the benefits of lighting savings, which, if they occur, seem to be insignificant. For all these reasons, it seems that time made be up for the seasonal time change.