In a recent commentary, columnist Lorne Gunter has presented a compelling case for Alberta to choose permanent standard time over daylight saving time if the province decides to eliminate its twice-yearly clock changes. Gunter challenges the common arguments against the seasonal time shift, suggesting that concerns about one-hour disruptions are exaggerated compared to other daily realities.
The Flawed Argument Against Time Changes
Gunter points out that many Albertans who complain about the hour difference caused by springing forward or falling back regularly travel to cities like Vancouver or Winnipeg, which are permanently one hour apart from Edmonton. "Since one hour is the same difference caused by the time change," he writes, "and since you think that hour is inflicting horrible disruptions in your life and in society, don't ever leave home and face the hell of being in a different time zone."
The columnist extends this logic to shift workers, who regularly transition between day and night schedules without the catastrophic consequences predicted by opponents of time changes. Gunter characterizes the debate as a "First-World problem" that deserves less attention than more substantive issues facing the province.
The Case Against Permanent Daylight Saving Time
While Gunter expresses no particular attachment to daylight saving time itself, he identifies significant problems with making it permanent. His primary concern centers on winter sunrise times in Alberta's northern latitude.
"The latest sunrise in Edmonton this past winter was 8:52 a.m. just after the solstice," Gunter notes. "Bring in permanent DST and that sunrise would have been at nearly 10 a.m."
This scenario would create practical problems for multiple segments of the population:
- Children would travel to school in complete darkness
- Commuters and office workers would begin their days without sunlight
- Construction workers and tradespeople would need to work under artificial lighting for extended morning hours
- Safety concerns would increase for those working or traveling in darkness
The Solar Argument for Standard Time
Gunter advocates for permanent standard time as the more logical choice, arguing that it "more closely follows the pattern of the solar day." He questions the value of daylight saving time at Alberta's 53rd latitude, where summer evenings already remain light until after 9 p.m. even without the time adjustment.
The columnist, who identifies as an early riser, expresses personal preference for earlier sunrises rather than later sunsets. "One thing I dislike about the time change in spring is that we are just beginning to get daylight a bit earlier and — poof! — we'll be nearly another month before we get it back at 7 a.m.," he explains.
Broader Context and Implications
Gunter's commentary comes as several jurisdictions reconsider their approach to seasonal time changes. British Columbia has already passed legislation to make daylight saving time permanent, though implementation awaits coordination with neighboring U.S. states.
The debate in Alberta reflects broader discussions about how time policies affect public health, safety, and quality of life. While some research suggests negative impacts from time changes on sleep patterns and accident rates, Gunter's argument emphasizes the practical consequences of permanent daylight saving time in northern regions.
As Alberta considers its options, Gunter's perspective adds weight to the standard time alternative, suggesting that aligning with natural solar patterns may serve the province's residents better than extending evening daylight at the expense of morning darkness.
