Well, I got my hour back with the return to my beloved Eastern Standard Time. Not that it made a difference, as I was still awake when my brain said it was 4:30 AM, now 3:30 AM. I'm one of those disgusting morning people -- I don't need an alarm clock. I did manage to get back to sleep, but it was just on principle. Being able to lazily ignore the call to rise and shine for another hour or so is nice, but in terms of quality sleep, nope, doesn't qualify.
Daylight Saving Time is a wonderful concept. One of the people I admire most, the late and great Benjamin Franklin, proposed it way back when and during the months when it actually benefits folks, I have no issue with it. But someone is going to have to explain to me how it saves energy to have it around for an extra week in the fall. Is there that much of an energy saving to be had in seven more days of the sun really making its appearance at 7 AM and darkness falling at 7 PM? Most of us are up and functioning before 7 AM, anyway. The lights, toaster, coffeemaker, etc. are going to be on, anyway. Businesses that are starting their day earlier than sunrise will be using the same amount of energy, anyway. The lights are on during the day, you just don't see them until the sun goes down. Yes, you can see the shift of when the peak energy is used, you can see conservation at certain hours when there would be none if DST were not around. But come this time of year, when night is slightly longer than day already, is it really conserving enough to warrant Daylight Saving Time being around longer?
Perhaps because this is the first year of prolonging the twice yearly screw-up of our circadian rhythms , the statistics on how much energy is being saved can only be estimated based on historical patterns of energy use. However, I sincerely hope they're wrong with this newest attempt to save fuel in the long run. I love being able to wake in the morning and watch the transition from a starlit sky to dawn to sun rising over the horizon, but not everyone does.
