In July, the International Court of Justice handed down a long-awaited Advisory Opinion on state obligations under international law concerning climate change. This latest statement joins a growing body of legal authority on the matter, reflecting not only the increasing recognition of the urgency with which climate change needs to be managed and prepared for, but also crucially underscoring the role that humans and human activities play.
It is therefore equally important that our conceptions of the consequences of climate change under-preparedness reflect reality.
In other words, “natural disasters” are a misnomer. The human role should not be ignored. There is nothing inevitable or “natural” about the disasters the world confronts.
What are disasters?
Disasters are events that cause serious disruption to the functioning of a community or society. They frequently result in large scale loss and damage in human, economic, and environmental terms. This occurs because disasters overwhelm capacities to respond.
Although climate change causes extreme weather events, a disaster is only inevitable when there is insufficient preparation and prevention.
Disasters are often conflated with an “emergency” and “humanitarian crisis”. While closely related, and certainly with overlaps, these terms and concepts are distinct. Emergencies occur suddenly, requiring urgent and immediate response. While both emergencies and disasters trigger imminent action, an emergency may not necessarily overwhelm response capacities. A household fire, for instance, is usually considered an emergency rather than a disaster.
More difficult to distinguish are disasters and humanitarian crises. UNICEF defines a humanitarian crisis as “any circumstance where humanitarian needs are sufficiently large and complex to require significant external assistance and resources, and where a multi-sectoral response is needed, with the engagement of a wide range of international humanitarian actors”. Some scholars point to “a rupture to a presumed normalcy” where the ordinary state of affairs is suspended, and chaos and instability take over. While a universal definition is lacking, it is safe to say that a crisis ensues when humanitarian needs – or the ordinary state of affairs – are not met and returned to a normal state over an extended period of time.
The difference, then, between a disaster and a humanitarian crisis is both temporal and a question of effective response. In short, a disaster may lead to a humanitarian crisis, but may also fall short of this if met with swift and effective alleviation.
But why do these words matter?
As climate change worsens, extreme weather events are occurring in higher frequency and with greater intensity. This year alone, the International Disaster Database EM-DAT reports 158 weather-related disasters have occurred. These include disasters involving cyclones, wildfires, and storms among other extreme weather events. The United Nations estimates that while the global cost of disasters was US$634.6 billion in 2005, this figure now exceeds US$2.3 trillion when indirect and ecosystem costs are factored in. Furthermore, the number of annual deaths resulting from weather-related disasters stands at tens of thousands, while those whose lives were spared but are nonetheless impacted number in the millions according to EM-DAT.
Yet, while the world appears cognisant of the staggering impact of climate change and the urgency with which climate change must be managed and prepared for, the language used to describe resulting disasters is riddled with denial. Specifically, when we refer to “natural disasters”.
The term “natural disasters” signals helplessness; an inevitability that could not be stopped – the disaster is a natural phenomenon. But there is nothing natural about disasters. Although climate change causes extreme weather events, a disaster is only inevitable when there is insufficient preparation and prevention. A landslide would simply be a landslide if regulations were appropriately enacted and enforced such that homes and critical infrastructure are reasonably out of potential harm’s way, are safely built, and are accompanied by necessary safeguards in the unlikely event that natural forces threaten human destruction.
Changing the narrative
Changing the language we use to speak about disasters is crucial. It will shape how we take ownership of our actions and inactions, leading to more robust and transparent discussions to adapt to the effects of climate change. It will also support prioritisation of anticipatory action and disaster risk reduction mechanisms alongside preparation for relief in the event it is called for.
A better framing of disasters is therefore to describe disasters as triggered by natural or human-induced hazards. “Triggered,” because natural phenomena do not occur in a vacuum and are often combined with human-induced factors to create cascading effects that result in disasters. This explains why poor and marginalised communities are most vulnerable to disasters as they frequently receive little to no protection and do not have the capacity to develop sufficient resources. Under-resourced countries are equally vulnerable to disasters owing to a lack of capacity to adapt, prepare, and respond.
A shift in narrative that reflects our contribution to the occurrence of disasters will support a change in mindset and approach, placing greater emphasis on what we can do to significantly lessen the inevitable impact of climate change. Hopefully, to mitigate the danger, too.
