In response to Rebecca McNulty's column "Daylight-saving time annoying, inconvenient — leave clocks alone" (SN 4/05) about the pointless and annoying nature of daylight-saving time, I would like to show why it is worth doing.

Ever since Ben Franklin noticed the great waste of sunlight and candles that was occurring in 18th century France, daylight-saving time has been widely seen as beneficial. Today, millions of dollars in electric bills are saved each year in the United States just from this quick change of the clock. In this age of fuel-efficient cars, solar panels and wind-powered generators, the minor inconvenience of setting a clock back or forward once every 183 days is well worth the effort.

Recreational activities and exercise also greatly increase during this period of optimal sunlight, along with overall morale, which I would regard as being good. Even if this extra hour of sunlight is not used, the option still exists for people to use it to the full extent. For one hour lost about every six months, 183 hours of sunlight is gained. Who would not want to make a trade like that?

With McNulty's argument of the government excessively regulating time, who says regulation is always a bad thing? Regulation is sometimes needed to keep order and optimize what nature gives us. Besides, the regulation of daylight-saving time is not the only change from "natural" time that occurs in our daily lives. A day consisting of an even 24 hours or having 24 standard time zones in the world is not natural, yet we seem to enjoy the benefits of them.

So, if there are more important things in this world to concern ourselves with, why attack something that obviously is in place for a reason?

Scott Leduc
civil engineering junior