I went to bed last night with Oxford covered in a thin, quiet blanket of snow. I woke up to find the country in chaos.
The Telegraph ran a headline saying, "Britain paralyzed by worst snowfall for 20 years." Meanwhile, the usually reserved Times of London reported: "Chaos after huge snow blanket hits UK." The Guardian followed suit: "England wakes up to snow chaos."
I read these headlines with the shades still drawn. Outside my windows, where usually birds signal the shift from the gloom of England's night to the grayness of its days, there were students trilling about the snow. I threw open the window and found not a blanket of snow, but streets mostly black but for pockets of white and a chill in the air. So little snow, I thought, for so much disruption.
And so I took the streets. Experience bore out the papers. Many of the businesses along Turl Street -- one of the quiet streets that typify Oxford, its pubs, clothiers and nested Colleges -- were closed, or just opening, at 10am. At Walter's barbershop, the conversation was about the snow. Over the radio, reports of commuting difficulties were read aloud, seemingly without end.
Once at home, emails came in, and status updates all read the same: "Snow day." "Can't make it to the office, working from home." It all reminded me of a section from Sarah Lyall's wonderful book The Anglo Files. In discussing the difficulties of the trains here, she recalled the following headline from The Evening Standard: "Inch of Snow Causes Chaos."
For a boy from New England, this all seemed like a rather lot of hoopla about nothing. A few weeks ago, my father woke up to find a nearly an inch of snow on the ground. He cleared the drive way and, upon getting into his car, found his usual route blocked by fallen power lines. Finding his other route blocked by a fallen tree, he drove an extra 10 miles and made his way into the office. This was neither routine nor extraordinary; it was simply the weather, and he had a car.
Today was much the same; to me, it was simply the weather, and beautiful weather at that. But to this country, it was enormously disruptive.
The airports were closed, sealing England off from Europe, if not the rest of the world. The closures on the underground were comprehensive; only the Victoria line was reported to be running "in good service." In this country, that phrase could mean nearly anything.
Following The Guardian's declaration of chaos, came the equally dramatic headline announcing that the "Cost of arctic weather could top £1bn." According to the paper, "The Federation of Small Businesses estimated this morning that one-in-five workers will fail to reach work today, at a cost of £1.2bn."
Granted, the snow was the most England has received in 18 years. But that trend is consistent with 2008, the coolest year since 2000. A generation shouldn't always prepare a nation for a once a generation event. But weather is never a day in isolation; it's a constellation of global trends with local effects. Today, then, was a cold dip following a cool year on an otherwise warming planet. Today was more than a day; it was a model of what the world has seen this past year, and what England might see again. As such, it raises some important point, and questions, about climate change.
First, that climate change does not mean uniform global warming. A changing climate is a volatile one. The IPCC and others predict that weather patterns will not only warm, but will move towards their natural extremes. For England, that may mean more of today's weather in the centuries to come.
Second, that countries are still subject to the unpredictable whim of the weather. Consider England's productivity losses today. Climate change will risk, as England Sir Nicholas Stern famously said, a significant decline in economic productivity.
Third, it raises questions about adaptive capacity. England is, despite its sometime appearance as a post-industrialized country (again, nod to Lyall), is in a position of global affluence. Its standard of living, and its productivity, is high. Despite all of this, all it took was a little snowfall to cause a major economic and social disruption. This certainly can't bode well for developing countries, whose adaptive capacities are significantly lower.
Finally, the issue of adaptation is most often discussed over centuries. But today's snow, and much larger, more devastating events like Katrina and the 2004 tsunami, raise the question of non-linear climatic changes. What about climatic changes that occur within the period of decades, not centuries? And what of the extreme events that occur an otherwise sloping trend? How will we adapt? If today's events are any indication, the transition will not be painless.
To a large extent, some of these problems are peculiar to England's constitution. Its weather is consistently poor, but rarely terrible. The only thing regular about the trains are their delays. Throughout the 20th century, England suffered such ignominies in proud silence. But not today.
The snow was too much, their preparedness too little. For this New England boy, the headlines wrote the pathos of the Old World. As a friend of mine observed, "No wonder we lost the empire."
(Photo courtesy of taperoo2k @ flickr. Used under the Creative Commons license.)
I did my Bachelor's degree at Oxford, and I have had the pleasure of visiting New England, and I would certainly agree that their climates are quite different. A dusting of snow in Winter in Oxford is not unusual. What confuses me here is that Ben Carmichael seems to be reporting from an area dusted by snow and, based on that, assuming that every other region of Britain (technical note - the country is Britain, or the United Kingdom; England cannot be used interchangeably with these terms, but refers to the part of Britain that extends north to the Scottish border and west to the Welsh) has been similarly lightly dusted and immediately fallen into a paroxysm.
Oxford being a little slow to start under an inch of snow is a very different proposition from London, for example, which experienced in places eight to ten inches of snow and which regularly operates near the edge of its infrastructural tolerances just moving its millions of inhabitants around.
This adumbration of the hardy virtues of New over old England, satisfying though it certainly is from a rhetorical point of view, detracts, for me, from the more pressing message of the piece.
Hi Dan,
First, let me say thank you for taking the time to read and comment.
You’re right, of course, that the snow fell unevenly across England. Oxford received a few inches, while London was covered in a about a foot. That can make the difference between life as usual, and life disrupted.
But that wasn’t the point, was it? Even in such areas as London and Scotland did the snow warrants bold headlines declaring “chaos”, as a number of the national newspapers reported. Did it warrant not only front page headlines, but two page spreads? And what of the Times yesterday that warned, “Prepare for another crippling fall”?
My point was not how much snow there was, but rather very similar to yours: weather is regional, and not everyone is prepared for even a small change in patterns. My further point was that, in a changing climate, even the globally privileged will have to adapt – and especially England, as northern latitudes gain more precipitation over the coming century, as climatologists predict.
Even now, England should by all means be prepared. They are a country admired for a rugged strength, as much for their antiquated aristocracy. Moreover, in this country, weather is used as excuse, filler and substance in conversations. They certainly have relied on it over the past few days, sometimes to existential effect.
Following the storm, on BBC Radio I heard the announcer ask: “But is the weather good for nature?” The guest responded by saying, “It’s neither good nor bad. It’s simply the weather.”
As I write this, more snow is falling – more in Oxford than we had in the first round. I suspect there will be more delays. This time, it’s expected for, as the Times is reporting, there are “fears that Britain is running out of salt and grit.”
Best as ever,
Ben
It is true that the UK (if not most of Europe, with the exception of the rapidly modernised Germany, France and the Netherlands) is buckling under the weight of living up to the expectations of being a first world developed nation. It doesn't take too much to disrupt the UK really. What the UK has invested in more than its infrastructure is in surveillance technologies to snoop on every living person, using biometrics, routine DNA collections from anyone arrested (irrespective of whether or not they are ever charged) and the push on ID cards and data sharing amongst separate agencies. All of this in the face of the government admitting that they have no way to guarantee the protection of the data gathered.
Certainly, living on the outskirts of London one gets used to the unreliable buses and trains, lousy services and attitudes from spotty 18 year old jobsworths or outsourced customer "care" (yeah, right, pull the other one!) with poor Indians who can barely speak English; one even gets used to the mealy mouthed politicos who espouse democracy but cling to ancient modes of power in a first-past-the-post approach to elections and who remain unaccountable and resolute in their dogmatic agenda of command and control. One gets used to many things living in the UK, but it is true that the disruptions one may imagine resulting from climate change (aka climate chaos) will be completely intolerable and the UK is (as usual, it seems) completely unprepared and content to keep their collective heads up their arses. As far as a cogent, strategic approach to risk management, the UK has next to nothing in place. Your article therefore does identify some serious issues that have yet to "click" for the general public who seem more interested in "reality" TV (what an oxymoron) and game shows.


















