Should we stop using the term “natural disaster”?
Flooding in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. photo: NOAA
When we think of the term “natural disaster,” we think of horrific events like Hurricane Katrina, the fires and floods that engulfed California, and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. Each of these events started as a natural phenomenon and ended up causing massive deaths and billions of dollars in damages—thus becoming a catastrophe.
The term “natural disaster” has long been used by scientists, the media and politicians to discuss these events.However, confounding factors such as climate change and rising social inequality have prompted a reconsideration of the term. We all know that natural disasters have worsened in recent years, claiming more lives and changing the shape of our planet at an exponential rate.according to world meteorological organization, the number of disasters has increased fivefold in the past 50 years. People have reacted with shock and anomaly to the many hurricanes, floods and fires that have plagued the world recently.
Have these disasters shifted enough to no longer be considered “natural”? Does it really matter what we call them?Investigating this issue, I and john. Mom C – Faculty- and anthropologist at the Earth Institute, Columbia Institute for Climatology JC Salyer at Barnard College.
Why does the terminology we use to describe these catastrophic weather events matter? While Salyer’s work doesn’t have much to do with climate science, his course “Climate Change, Migration, and Human Rights” emphasizes that the words we use to describe events that affect human rights and well-being can greatly affect those affected.
The way we name something, especially an incident, changes the scale of blame, explanation and situation, Salyer said. He used the term “climate refugees” as an example. Using the term refugee to describe people displaced by climate change shows that their situation is somewhat reversible and that their displacement is temporary, he said. However, it is not. Sea-level rise is irreversible, and rising temperatures won’t go down—at least not in our lifetimes. But the term “climate refugees,” widely used by organizations such as the United Nations to suggest to the world that these conditions are not permanent, has changed the way these displaced people are treated.
Is this the same as the case with the term “natural disaster”? If yes, what is the meaning of this term? Are they provocative enough to warrant changing the terminology?
Both Mutter and Salyer agree that natural disasters have both a natural component — “There’s no cyclone disaster without the cyclone factor, that’s natural,” Mutter said — and a human component. Human behavior may both contribute to the creation of disasters and make their impacts worse—for example, by encouraging the construction of real estate on hurricane-prone coastlines.
If someone doesn’t understand that there is a human factor involved in the creation of natural disasters, it might make sense to change the word to something like “disaster,” Mutter said. However, he believes this is not the case. In Mutter and Salyer’s view, in their world, people generally believe that natural disasters are not really natural disasters for a long time. The scientists and people who make the decisions around these events generally understand the numerous “unnatural” reasons that turn these events into catastrophes. However, most of the people who read the media coverage of these events and voted for policymakers to come to power probably don’t understand these unnatural influences.
Coming up with a word to express this human element in disasters is complicated — so far, there is no perfect substitute for “natural disaster.” However, as climate change exacerbates the intensity of these phenomena, everyone must know that these events are linked to climate change and socioeconomic inequalities.
So the question now is: does the rest of the world interpret “natural disaster” the same way, and is it worth changing the name? Does continuing to refer to these events as “natural” events reduce the sense of urgency around climate mitigation and human rights?
According to Salyer, the term “natural disaster” refers to a single humanitarian crisis or event, such as Hurricane Katrina, that can spark a philanthropic response. We look at each disaster as an individual event to provide some help, but we have no real obligation to create any change. We’re ignoring a larger underlying problem.
So should we stop using the term “natural disaster”? After talking to professors Mutter and Salyer, the only really definitive answer I got was that the term changes meaning depending on the domain in which it is used.In the world of Mutter, the world of climate science and education—perhaps including those who read state of the earth – The change of terminology is superfluous. In his forthcoming book on natural disasters and social inequality, he begins with a disclaimer that he will refer to these events as natural disasters. It doesn’t look like the term has died out, but has become controversial enough to warrant a disclaimer.
From the microcosm of social awareness and climate education to the larger world where we get most of our climate change news and education from sources like broadcast news, a change in terminology has the potential to change the way we respond to these mounting disasters.
What terms can trigger real change and action? I have no idea.
Ella Jacobs is an undergraduate sustainability major at Columbia University.
