A practical way to stop changing clocks twice a year

This weekend, Americans will wake up to the dreaded biannual time change, when we barter an hour of sleep in exchange for the promise of more sunlight in the evenings.

Many changes to the way we change the clocks have been proposed, but instead of inconveniently alternating between standard time in the fall and daylight saving time in the spring, a permanent 30-minute compromise between daylight and standard time would eliminate disruptive clock changes and enable a brighter winter.

Every spring and fall, millions of Americans endure the same inconvenient ritual: adjusting every clock in the house to mark the start or end of daylight saving time. This twice-yearly disruption throws off sleep schedules, affects productivity, and even confuses pets and children. Many quietly wonder: Why are we still doing this?

The answer lies in tradition and indecision. Daylight saving time was introduced more than a century ago to make better use of daylight hours. But today, the costs of this practice far outweigh its benefits. Research shows that these clock changes are harmful, increasing the risk of heart attacks, car accidents, and workplace injuries. Productivity dips, and the economy loses an estimated $1.7 billion annually due to the biannual shift.

Yet this exercise persists, not because it works well, but because policymakers cannot agree on an alternative.

Daylight saving time originated in 1907 when British builder William Willett published “The Waste of Daylight,” urging people to take advantage of early-morning sunlight. His idea was simple and appealing: longer evenings for leisure and productivity. The concept spread and became embedded in American life.

Today, 48 states, excluding Arizona and Hawaii, still follow this system. The Uniform Time Act of 1966 allows states to opt out of daylight saving time, but federal law prohibits its adoption year-round.

In recent years, states from Florida to Washington have passed legislation urging Congress to end the clock changes. But the debate has split into two camps: those who want permanent standard time and those who want permanent daylight time. Predictably, Congress remains deadlocked.

Both approaches have serious drawbacks. Permanent daylight time would mean late winter sunrises — near 9:00 a.m. in parts of the northern U.S. — forcing children to head to school in darkness for months. Conversely, permanent standard time would shorten summer evenings, reducing opportunities for recreation and making afternoons feel bleak. Neither option satisfies everyone.

So why not split the difference? A permanent 30-minute adjustment, halfway between standard and daylight time, offers a balanced solution. It would eliminate the disruptive biannual clock changes while preserving more evening light in winter and avoiding excessively late sunrises. Countries such as India, Sri Lanka, and Newfoundland already use half-hour offsets successfully. If 1.4 billion people can manage it, so can 330 million Americans.

The practical benefits are clear. In New York, for example, winter sunsets would shift from 4:30 p.m. to about 5:00 p.m., a modest but meaningful improvement. Summer mornings would remain bright without creeping too far into late morning. Businesses would avoid billions in lost productivity, and industries like transportation and broadcasting could plan without biannual disruptions.

The biggest advantage of this plan is its simplicity: set the clock once and be done with it. Americans could finally stop arguing about whether to permanently “fall back” or “spring forward.” Airlines, railroads, and news broadcasters could schedule without confusion. Families would enjoy more consistent routines, and the health risks associated with time changes would disappear.

While some devices would require adjustment, the long-term benefits far outweigh temporary inconveniences. More importantly, this proposal represents something rare in American politics: genuine compromise. Both sides agree the current system is flawed; this solution meets in the middle.

Winter is dark enough. Congress should adopt this simple, sensible reform. In an era when Washington struggles to find consensus on almost anything, here is a problem both parties already want solved. The need to split the difference is clear — the solution is right in the middle.

Harris M. Cohen is a railroad planning professional.

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

More Opinions - Energy and Environment News

What we know about Noem’s new ‘Shield of the Americas’ role

DHS funding bill passes the House, with eroding Democratic support

Trump says Cuba’s next: Here’s how it could play out

US Postal Service takes another wrong turn

Fox News poll: Majority says Trump’s handling of Iran has made US less safe

US loses 92,000 jobs in February, falling far short of expected gain

Paxton offers conditions for potential exit from Texas Senate race 

Judge orders Trump administration to close out goods without charging emergency ...

Noem defends living on base in Coast Guard housing 

How Kristi Noem finally lost Trump’s trust

Watch video from Noem’s controversial $220M ad campaign

Trump on Noem $220M ad campaign: ‘I wasn’t thrilled with it’

Talarico gives defiant victory party speech: ‘There is something happening in ...

Senate Democrats block bill to fund DHS, spurning increased GOP pressure

Here are the 4 Democrats who opposed the war powers resolution

RFK Jr. puts Dunkin’ on notice; Massachusetts governor says ‘come and take ...

Trump has been right about oil all along

Democratic reps send letter to Patel over fired FBI agents and staff

The Hill Podcasts – Morning Report

© The Hill