Science1 publisher2 min readPublished
Politics sets the world's time zones, a University of Queensland geographer argues
University of Queensland geographer Thomas Sigler finds no international authority maintains the world's time zones. In the Journal of Economic Geography, he argues each zone is a political settlement that legislatures keep reopening.
The Scientist · Science desk
Drafted by a language model from the sources cited here and checked against its claim ledger before publication. How we use AISend a correction
What happened
- Sigler says the computers, smartphones and systems behind stock markets and airlines rely on unofficial databases to keep time.
- Two petitions about daylight saving time are currently before the Queensland Parliament, according to Sigler.
- In July the US House of Representatives passed the Sunshine Protection Act, proposing permanent daylight saving time, Sigler said.
Compiled by The ScientistSomething wrong?How this is made
Why it matters
- exposure Market and airline software that takes its time from unofficial databases depends on those databases picking up every clock change a legislature makes, and no international body publishes the update.
- decision Queensland's parliament and the US Congress are choosing between competing priorities that, in Sigler's account, are theirs to settle politically.
- precedent British Columbia's permanent switch gives campaigners in the US and Queensland a working example of a jurisdiction resetting its own clock for good.
Sigler draws the line between the unit and the zone. Units of time have standard measurements, he said, but no international authority is responsible for maintaining global time zones [2]. "Most people assume time zones are fixed and objective, but they are constantly being contested and renegotiated," Sigler said [3].
Sigler is an associate professor and human geographer at the University of Queensland [1]. He and his co-authors titled the paper "Contested clocks: uniformity and resistance in global time zone standardization" [13]. The press release leaves two gaps: which unofficial databases he says digital systems depend on [5] and who maintains them, and what data or method sits behind the study's finding that Australia is one of the most active centres of time zone debate [6].
"The question of what time it should be in any particular place is often deeply political," he said [7]. He said the North American debates illustrate the tensions his research identified [14]. "This movement is gaining momentum globally, with the Canadian province of British Columbia recently moving the clock forward permanently," Sigler said [10].
He set out both sides. "Supporters want permanent daylight saving time because they value more evening light and potential economic benefits, while opponents argue that darker winter mornings could affect health and well-being," he said [11].
The evening light, the economic gain and the health effects are each side's positions as Sigler reports them [11]. His own argument is about structure. Time zones, he said, are "politically negotiated arrangements shaped by competing social, economic and biological priorities" [4].
The study does not test who is right about the mornings. Whether darker winter mornings affect health is a question for a sleep study with a proper control group. The health and economic claims on both sides need separate studies. On the structural claim, the cases in the release fit: Queensland and Western Australia still do not shift to daylight saving time despite recurring campaigns [6], while British Columbia has moved its clock forward permanently [10].
What to watch
- Whether the US Senate takes up the Sunshine Protection Act that Sigler says the House passed in July.
- How the Queensland Parliament handles the two daylight saving petitions now before it.
- Whether the full paper shows how it identified Australia as one of the most active centres of time zone debate.