Researchers working at Cambridge University are backing a proposal to abandon Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) and synchronise our clocks with those of central Europe amid claims that the change would save lives, conserve energy, and help reduce carbon emissions.

Conservative chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, Tim Yeo put forward a Private Members’ bill last week proposing the trial implementation of Central European Time (CET) in Britain. No final decision has yet been reached. If given the go-ahead the trial would span three years, after which its effects would be assessed.

Yeo proposes to shift British time forward by one hour to GMT+1 in winter and to GMT+2 during British Summer Time. The country would still participate in Daylight Saving Time (DST), the practice of shifting the clock biannually (forward in the spring and backward in the autumn) to gain an extra hour of light.

Research headed by Elizabeth Garnsey at Cambridge’s Centre for Technology Management emphasises the environmental impact of abandoning GMT. Garnsey told Varsity, “Almost certainly energy is wasted in spring and autumn when it gets light earlier in the morning than is useful.” The findings suggest that the extra hour of evening light could save around £485m each year from reduced light usage in the afternoon.

In addition, the drop in energy consumption in one year would be equivalent to reducing the annual carbon emissions of 70,000 people to zero. Other calculations estimate 0.8 per cent reductions in domestic lighting bills and 4 per cent cuts in commercial costs, as fewer working days would finish outside daylight hours. Garnsey was keen to emphasise that “the estimates on energy consumption are very approximate”, but she hopes the findings will “encourage further work on the topic”.

the change would save lives, conserve energy and help reduce carbon emissions

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has also spoken of the benefits of switching from GMT to CET. Citing the increase in road traffic accidents when the clocks go back in autumn each year, the organisation estimates that in the past 35 years around 5,000 avoidable deaths on British roads have occurred during these periods. Garnsey told Varsity, “I believe the main case [for the abandonment of GMT] is made by the accident figures.” She said “The road accident figures already demonstrate that GMT+1 in winter would save lives … We are less certain of the impact of GMT+2 in summer as this has not been tried here.”

This is not the first time that British government has considered changing the country’s timekeeping. Britain experienced year-round British Summer Time between 1968 and 1971. But at the time, parents complained that children had to travel to school in the dark, and farming and construction industries also voiced disapproval. The experiment ended following a Parliamentary vote and all proposals for changing the time system since have failed. Garnsey argues there is now sufficient evidence to warrant another attempt. “We must have this experiment put into practice so we can gather the required information, because all the signs suggest it’s a disadvantage to keep on GMT.” Acknowledging possible opposition she said, “they may not want to give [GMT] up, but GMT+1 isn’t bad. It sounds like progress.”

David Rooney, curator of timekeeping at the Royal Observatory, is pragmatic. “There has always been an absence of consensus concerning GMT. We are currently in the one-hundredth year of discussion since British Summer Time was first proposed in 1907. As a museum, we do not have a view ourselves. Whatever happens to GMT, British time will continue to be measured in relation to the Prime Meridian Line”, he said.

If Mr Yeo’s proposal to abandon GMT is approved, the change to CET will not comr into effect until 2am on October 26 2008.

Nikki Burton and Kat Hanna