Written by Sustainability...the term “natural disaster”, should we stop using it?
Written by Sustainability...the term “natural disaster”, should we stop using it?
When we think of the term “natural disaster,” we think of the horrific events that occurred, whether on a regional or global level, such as: Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami earthquake in the Indian Ocean, forest fires in Australia, and other phenomena that were initially natural phenomena, but then ended up causing massive loss of life and exorbitant costs estimated at billions of dollars. Then it changed from being called a “natural phenomenon” to a “natural disaster.”
The term “natural disaster” has long been used by scientists, media, and politicians to discuss many devastating global events, but some factors - such as climate change and rising social inequality - have called for reconsideration of this term.
ButThe questionHere, have these disasters turned - to a sufficient degree - into non-natural disasters? Is this issue so important that we should discuss it?
The importance of the meaning of the term
The way we name events - especially global events - is a reason for changing our dealings with these events and our understanding of their causes and magnitude. An example of this is the use of the term “climate refugees”, as the use of the word “refugee” - as a description of people displaced by climate change - may mean that their situation is changeable in some way, and that their displacement is temporary, even though it is unlikely.
Sea level rise cannot be reversed, and increasing temperatures cannot decrease; Therefore, the term “climate refugees” - which is widely used by organizations such as the United Nations - suggests to the world that the conditions that caused these people to be displaced are not permanent, which may change the way these displaced people are dealt with.
From this standpoint, we must redefine the term “natural disaster,” as its use entails a set of effects, justifications, and reactions.
No one doubts that all “natural disasters” have a natural component, of course. The natural disaster resulting from a devastating hurricane is basically a natural phenomenon of air movement, and the natural disaster resulting from an earthquake is basically a natural phenomenon resulting from the movement of the earth’s layers; But the matter here is that some of these natural phenomena turned into disasters due to the intervention of the human factor.
For example, hurricanes become more destructive because many companies are given free rein to build real estate along hurricane-prone coastlines; Consequently, the results are disastrous, and the matter turns into a “natural disaster.” Another example is earthquakes, the effects of which are more severe, due to the collapse of infrastructure in many areas, or due to failure to adhere to standard specifications in construction. Therefore, when earthquakes occur, the effects are catastrophic, and the description of the event becomes a “natural disaster.”
Climate change also - and the accompanying phenomena that originate mainly in human activity - leads to the occurrence of “natural disasters”, such as: floods, forest fires, and others. But the term here also fails to express human contributions to these disasters.
The hidden human element
Coming up with a term that takes into account this human element in disasters may be complicated, as there is no perfect alternative to the term “natural disasters.” However, given that climate change is exacerbating the severity of these phenomena, it is important for everyone to know that these events are fundamentally related to global warming and social and economic inequality, and that they are not just a natural behavior of the planet.
All of the above raises many questions, such as: Does the whole world interpret the term “natural disaster” in the same way? Would replacing this term be useful? Will continuing to call these events “natural” reduce the sense of responsibility towards making further efforts? To reduce climate change?
For many people, the term “natural disaster” refers to a specific crisis, or single humanitarian event, such as Hurricane Katrina and, more recently, the earthquakes in Türkiye and Syria; Thus, each disaster is treated as a separate event, with some aid provided, without any comprehensive vision of the scene, or without a real commitment to making any change. While we ignore a major fundamental problem, we direct our focus to smaller sub-events.
Reformulating the term “natural disasters” will depend - to a large extent - on the environment in which this term is circulated, and perhaps climate and geoscience scientists and those interested in environmental and climate affairs do not need this; Because of their true awareness of the meaning and reason behind these disasters, but the matter becomes an urgent necessity when the term is used in the media, in political discussions, and elsewhere.
But the question remains: What is the term capable of bringing about a real change in our understanding and dealing with “natural disaster”? We leave the answer to you.
