Madrid (EFE) controversial European directive that all member states must comply with.
As of this Sunday, it will dawn later and the afternoons will be longer because one more hour of light will be gained.
The time change to adapt daily activities to daylight hours occurs in the States of the European Union every March and October, when, according to directive 2000/84/EC, the hands of the clock must be advanced and delayed (respectively). one hour.
A highly criticized directive
Although the initial motivation for this measure is to save energy, the directive has been widely criticized both by European citizens – who in a 2018 consultation were 80% in favor of ending the time change – and by experts and environmentalists.
Rodrigo Irurzun, a specialist energy consultant and member of Ecologistas en Acción, questions the effect that the time change has on practice, which he considers “difficult to measure” but estimates in any case “very marginal”, according to the few studies published on the matter. .
Irurzun argues that the lack of clear studies is partly due to the fact that in order to know the impact of this measure, a test would have to be carried out to compare energy consumption “in the same year, with the same conditions, with and without time changes” , something that is impossible.
The policy “could have made sense decades ago,” says the expert, “because what is being tried is that the hours of light fit into our schedules, especially at work.”
Nowadays, however, he argues that “many public lighting systems, including interior lighting of buildings, have brightness sensors”, while many businesses remain illuminated regardless of natural light, so they vary an hour or so. “It doesn’t matter much.”
Health impact
In parallel, some studies point out that the time change has a negative impact on people’s health, as well as on conciliation, as has been repeatedly denounced by the ARHOE-National Commission for the Rationalization of Spanish Timetables.
Meanwhile, environmentalists criticize that politics can “divert the focus from the waste that occurs in many activities, in lifestyle and consumption and in the production and transport of energy itself”, which also contributes to the climate crisis.
“Of course you have to avoid a lot of waste, you have to bet on efficiency, but the efforts that have to be made are much higher than this supposed saving,” says Irurzun, who considers that settling for the time change and not betting on more forceful is to “cheat solitaire”.
