This past weekend, Daylight Saving Time began in the United States, nearly a month earlier than usual. This change was enacted to further reduce energy dependency. My question is this: how does daylight savings time actually reduce energy usage at all, let alone moreso with this new schedule?

     Governmental estimates suggest that this change will result in a nationwide savings in excess of $100 million, despite the usage itself only being reduced by 1%. This will also reportedly conserve 1% of total attributable emissions over the period of Daylight Savings Time.

     A study from the University of California shares my skepticism, however, stating that the research used in

determining a new DST schedule "significantly overstates electricity savings." This study seeks to re-evaluate the information using Australia as an example, and claims that "current plans and proposals to extend DST will fail to conserve energy." For years, I've been trying to wrap my head around the very concept of Daylight Savings, trying to understand how, when the day is still 24 hours long and our work/school/whatever-schedules are still the same length, we'd be using any less energy by changing the clocks by an hour twice a year. If we're turning our lights on less in the morning, aren't we then making up for it in the evening, and vice versa? Why put our body clocks through this difficult transition?

     That said, some people apparently really enjoy this transition and the extra evening hours it provides. While I can respect - and even understand, to a degree - that position, I feel that the extended days provided to us by Nature itself are sufficient to give me that little boost of daylight at the end of my day.

     We may never have a solid consensus as to whether or not there is true energy savings inherent in DST. The research varies as widely as do the opinions on the matter; for every study which claims savings, another refutes it. Unless we can eventually come to agree, I suspect it's here to stay.