For decades, Daylight Saving Time was presented as a smart solution for saving energy: setting clocks forward in summer meant making better use of sunlight and reducing electricity consumption at night. But in recent decades, a growing number of countries have decided to abandon the practice — and the reasons go far beyond energy savings.
Brazil was one of the most recent cases. President Jair Bolsonaro signed a decree abolishing Daylight Saving Time in April 2019, following a series of studies that questioned the actual energy savings and pointed to negative health impacts on the population. Since then, Brazil's four time zones have remained fixed year-round.
Russia took the same step in 2014. After years of clock changes that confused the population, the country decided to permanently adopt summer time — which in practice meant locking in a fixed time zone one hour ahead. The measure was well received, but resulted in months of very late sunrises in winter in Moscow.
In the European Union, the process has been slower. In 2019, the European Parliament voted to abolish Daylight Saving Time, but implementation has been stalled by disputes over which time each country should permanently adopt. The transition has not yet been completed.
From a scientific standpoint, the evidence against Daylight Saving Time is strong. Studies published in medical journals show that the clock change temporarily increases the risk of heart attacks, traffic accidents, sleep disorders, and drops in productivity. The human body can take up to two weeks to fully readjust.
The global trend is clear: fixed time zones are healthier, simpler, and more predictable. For those dealing with international communication, countries with stable time zones like Brazil and Japan are much easier to sync with than those that still change their clocks twice a year.