Le débat sur le changement d’heure: Pourquoi tant de critiques au Canada?

Debating the Controversial Time Change: Is it Really Beneficial?

An Incoherent and Non-Universal System

Since its reintroduction in 1975, the time change system in France, like in many European countries, has been a subject of controversy. The European Union had proposed to abolish the time change in 2019, but the decision was postponed to 2021 due to various factors such as Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the main challenges is harmonizing the legal time (summer or winter) among countries to avoid a patchwork of time zones. In France, a consultation organized by the National Assembly in 2019 revealed that a majority of participants (83.74%) were in favor of ending the time change. Over 60% reported having a negative experience with the time change. Additionally, the current system does not apply to overseas territories, except for Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon, which aligns with Canada’s time. On a global scale, several countries have already abandoned seasonal time changes, including Argentina, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Russia, and Armenia.

Questioning the Energy Savings

The main argument in favor of the time change has been energy savings. By taking advantage of longer daylight in the summer and aligning the schedule with the sun in the winter, it was believed that energy consumption could be reduced. However, studies have shown that the energy and CO2 savings are “modest.” According to the French Agency for the Environment and Energy Management (Ademe), a study conducted in 2010 revealed that the switch to daylight saving time resulted in increased electricity consumption in the morning, particularly at 6 am, and decreased consumption in the evening, mainly between 8 pm and 9 pm. This means that households pay slightly more for electricity in the morning but ultimately save in the evening. In 2009, the average electricity demand at 7 pm was reduced by 3.5 gigawatts (GW), resulting in energy savings of 440 gigawatt-hours (GWh), primarily related to public lighting. However, technological advancements in lighting systems, such as low-energy bulbs and LED lights, have decreased the effectiveness of these energy savings. By 2018, the reduction in electricity demand was only 351 GWh. Furthermore, considering that the majority of household energy consumption comes from heating rather than lighting, the actual energy savings from the time change remain questionable. In fact, a recent British study suggests that eliminating the time change in October could save households £400 (€460) per year, as longer daylight in the evening would reduce peak-hour energy demand.

Inconsistent Results on Road Safety

An organization called “Association contre l’heure d’été double” (Association against double daylight saving time) has been advocating against the time change, claiming that it leads to an increase in road accidents. Their argument is based on data from 1976, just after the reintroduction of daylight saving time, showing 661 additional road fatalities between April and October compared to the previous year. However, a report published by the European Commission in 2014, which reviewed several studies on the topic, found inconsistent results. Some studies suggested that the time change improves road safety by enhancing visibility during certain periods of the year and day, while others indicated a potential increase in road accidents due to sleep disturbances. To address this issue, road safety authorities have emphasized the importance of visibility for pedestrians, recommending the use of retroreflective devices (e.g., reflective vests, armbands, gloves, backpack strips) before the time change. Data from the French National Interministerial Road Safety Observatory between 2015 and 2019 showed a recurrent 42% increase in pedestrian accidents in November compared to October.

Potential Health Consequences

Several studies have examined the potential health effects of the time change. A Swedish study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2008 found a statistically significant increase in the risk of heart attacks in the week following the time change, especially during the transition to daylight saving time. However, these findings do not establish a causal relationship between the time change and health risks. Similarly, disruptions caused by the time change can only be explained by hypotheses rather than conclusive evidence. A report by the French Senate in 1997 stated that the medical community remained divided on the existence of health issues caused by daylight saving time. Nevertheless, there have been reports of increased medication consumption during the time change, with 19% of physicians reporting higher use of tranquilizers. A 2015 survey by OpinionWay for ComprendreChoisir found that 75% of respondents believed that the time change had a negative impact on sleep, diet, or mood.

Editorial: Evaluating the Time Change System

The debate surrounding the time change system raises important questions about its efficacy and benefits. While the initial intention of reducing energy consumption during the oil crisis was commendable, the current evidence on energy savings is inconclusive. Technological advancements in lighting and the predominance of heating-related energy consumption in households challenge the effectiveness of the time change in achieving significant energy savings. Moreover, concerns about road safety and potential health effects add complexity to the debate.

From a philosophical perspective, the time change system reflects our attempts to control and manipulate time to fit our economic and social needs. However, it also exposes the inherent limitations of such endeavors. We cannot simply alter time without considering its impact on various aspects of our lives. The time change disrupts our natural rhythms and can put individuals at risk, both on the roads and in terms of their health. It is crucial that we carefully evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of the time change system to ensure that our interventions in time align with our goals of promoting well-being and sustainability.

Advice for Decision-Makers

As decision-makers consider the future of the time change system, several factors should be taken into account. First, there is a need for further research on the energy savings and environmental impact of the time change, considering the advancements in lighting technology and evolving patterns of energy consumption. This research should also take into consideration the potential adverse effects on road safety and public health. Second, a comprehensive evaluation of public opinion, as demonstrated in the online consultation organized by the French National Assembly, should be considered to ensure that any decision aligns with the preferences and experiences of the population. Third, international collaboration should be encouraged to harmonize the time change system across borders and avoid a patchwork of time zones. This requires coordination and cooperation among countries to find common ground and establish consistent time standards. Finally, any decisions regarding the time change system should be made with a long-term perspective, considering the potential consequences on various aspects of society and the well-being of individuals. Ultimately, the objective should be to create a coherent and sustainable approach to time management, balancing economic, social, and individual needs.