Should we have daylight saving time?

Daylight saving time supports some companies but not others.

Question: Should we have daylight saving time?
Position‹2 of 2: No, we should not have daylight saving time
Argument‹2 of 3›: Daylight saving time supports some companies but not others.

The concept helps companies who benefit from sunlight and harms those who don't.

The argument

The argument treats daylight saving time as a policy sustained by interest rather than by public benefit. It has been kept alive by the consumer industry because it helps companies that profit from added sunlight and hurts companies that don't, which means the measure survives on the strength of who gains from it rather than on whether the country as a whole does. The beneficiaries are identifiable. Some examples of companies who benefit from sunlight include sports and recreational equipment companies, BBQ grill companies, and sunscreen companies, all of which sell products used outdoors and in daylight. The petroleum industry benefits greatly: the longer the day, the higher the chance people will drive more. While people can obviously drive at night, they are more likely to run errands and attend activities during the daylight hours, so moving an hour of light into the evening moves activity into the hours when people are willing to travel. That last benefit undermines the policy's own stated rationale. Along with this boost in the petroleum industry comes an increase in pollution due to gas consumption, thus cancelling out the little amount of energy saved by Daylight Saving Time. The measure is defended as an energy policy, yet the behaviour it encourages consumes what the clock change conserves. The costs fall on businesses whose product is not improved by daylight. Daylight Saving Time negatively affects companies that do not benefit from sunlight, and it has a large effect on primetime television networks, whose audiences are competing with an extra hour of usable evening. Viewership typically plunges in the spring after the "spring forward" time change; in fact, primetime shows that air on Mondays suffer a 10% drop in viewership on the spring Monday after the clocks change. A measure that merely moves advantage between industries while cancelling out its own energy saving is, on this view, not one we should have.

Premises

[P1]Daylight saving time is kept alive because it benefits some industries — sports, barbecue and sunscreen makers, and especially petroleum, as longer daylight means more driving. [P2] That extra driving increases pollution, cancelling out the little energy DST saves. [P3] Meanwhile it hurts other businesses, such as primetime TV, whose viewership drops after the spring clock change. [C] Therefore, because it merely supports some companies at others' expense, we should not have daylight saving time.

Counter-arguments

Getting rid of Daylight Saving Time would just flip the tables, resulting in favoring companies who do not benefit from added sunlight.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Not having Daylight Saving Time would simply have the opposite effect.