Read on Twitter
There’s a new episode of @RealHotTake (listen, subscribe, & leave a review).
I need to clarify something that came up related to the terms “natural disasters” and “climate disasters”. This is going to be a long thread.
#EMGTwitter #ClimateTwitter
https://fanlink.to/realhottake
I need to clarify something that came up related to the terms “natural disasters” and “climate disasters”. This is going to be a long thread.
#EMGTwitter #ClimateTwitter
https://fanlink.to/realhottake
To stay on theme: You ready?
In the episode, @MaryHeglar and @amywestervelt read from a really great piece written by @NaomiAKlein called “There’s Nothing Natural about Puerto Rico’s Disaster. https://theintercept.com/2018/09/21/puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-disaster-capitalism/
In the episode, @MaryHeglar and @amywestervelt read from a really great piece written by @NaomiAKlein called “There’s Nothing Natural about Puerto Rico’s Disaster. https://theintercept.com/2018/09/21/puerto-rico-hurricane-maria-disaster-capitalism/
Mary asked Amy why the term “natural disaster” is not applicable to events like the Camp Fire and Maria”.
This is a great question.
A hot take of my own: Not a single disaster in the history of the world has been natural.
This is a great question.
A hot take of my own: Not a single disaster in the history of the world has been natural.
In fact, this dates back to research from about 50 years ago. Dr. Dennis Mileti and other pioneers of disaster research explored what actually causes a disaster. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-005-0057-4
The problem stems from conflating “hazard” & “disaster”. These terms mean two, very different things. Hazards can be natural, disasters cannot. A hazard is an earthquake. The disaster is buildings falling down, people being injured, the need for search and rescue, rebuilding, etc
An earthquake that happens in the middle of nowhere and doesn’t cause anyone any harm isn’t a disaster. It’s only when those hazards interest with *us* to the point we are overwhelmed that it may be a disaster.
Generally, there are four types of hazard events: emergencies (Mass shootings), disasters (the Camp Fire), catastrophes (Maria), and complex humanitarian crises (Syrian refugee crisis).
This comes from Dr. Quarantelli’s work: http://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/674/PP304.pdf
This comes from Dr. Quarantelli’s work: http://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/674/PP304.pdf
The distinction between these hazard events have to do with the impacts and needs but also in how we manage them — who is involved and how it’s handled. They are categorically different phenomenon.
This matters BIG time.
This matters BIG time.
It’s at the heart of the failed responses to Katrina and Maria. We showed up with our disaster plans, not catastrophe plans.
I talked more about this here: http://www.disaster-ology.com/home/2017/10/1/everything-was-working-against-puerto-rico
I talked more about this here: http://www.disaster-ology.com/home/2017/10/1/everything-was-working-against-puerto-rico
In other words, not all events that the public perceives to be a disaster is actually a disaster from a *management* perspective. AÂn event can be catastrophic at an individual level (a water main breaks and floods your house) but not a community level (the levees break in NO).
This means the term natural disaster has *never* been correct in the same way that “act of god” has never been correct. These terms are reactive to the popular perception of what causes disasters — not what actually causes a disaster.
When you don’t have the science to explain the cause, it is supernatural. The term “natural” arose from advances in the hazard sciences and to distinguish natural hazards from what was, at the time, the newer phenomenon of technological hazards.
I KNOW this can come across as semantics and annoying af but it has life and death implications.
Attributing disasters to nature obscures the *cause* of those disasters.
Attributing disasters to nature obscures the *cause* of those disasters.
There are also legal implications. In the same way Insurance companies use the term “act of god” to get out of paying for completely predictable damage, developers/ industry/ government can use the term “natural disaster” to hand off culpability: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-california-wildfires-cause-disaster_n_5bec49cbe4b0783e0a1ef488
If we have any hope of preventing disasters we HAVE to understand their true cause in all the nuance and messiness that brings.
This case in TX is a good example of how recognizing human responsibility in causing a disaster can have legal implications: https://www.texastribune.org/2019/12/17/hurricane-harvey-flood-victims-barker-addicks-reservoirs-win-lawsuit/
This case in TX is a good example of how recognizing human responsibility in causing a disaster can have legal implications: https://www.texastribune.org/2019/12/17/hurricane-harvey-flood-victims-barker-addicks-reservoirs-win-lawsuit/
I also think removing the term “natural” does a lot to change our perception about what can be done to prevent disaster.
I like to say that if we are the cause of disaster, it means we are also the solution to disaster: https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/05/america-is-flooding-and-its-our-fault/561605/
I like to say that if we are the cause of disaster, it means we are also the solution to disaster: https://www.citylab.com/environment/2018/05/america-is-flooding-and-its-our-fault/561605/
It’s understanding the human factors that manufacture risk and create disaster that leads to advocacy and policy change — it’s exactly what can lead us to prevent disasters from happening in the first place.
It is powerful.
It is powerful.
In this way, I’d argue that calling a disaster natural is incredibly harmful. It not only obscures the cause but it also obscures the solutions.
“it’s not actually nature causing these things, it’s man-made climate change.”
I hear this ALL THE TIME NOW.
Climate change, alone, does not cause disaster. It absolutely can make them worse or otherwise difference. Climate isn’t the reason that disasters aren’t natural
I hear this ALL THE TIME NOW.
Climate change, alone, does not cause disaster. It absolutely can make them worse or otherwise difference. Climate isn’t the reason that disasters aren’t natural
There is never one cause of a disaster — by definition, disasters are caused by an interaction between a hazard and “us”. The “us” part of the equation is doing a lot of work — everything from the capacity of our EM system, policy, politics, social & physical vulnerability, etc.
Harvey and the Houston area is a good example. The attribution studies are clear about the link to climate change — that is one part of the cause but there is also a natural element (climate change did not cause the actual storm to form),
and there’s also a lot of other factors too — development choice being at the center in terms of where and how to build homes, sprawl, pacing over natural ecosystems. https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/06/houston-flooding-boomtown-flood-town-plain-text/
Importantly Amy points out that these fires/storms wouldn’t be “impacting us as much” without climate change. The “as much” part is the key piece here. Climate change is ONE factor among MANY.
See: https://theweek.com/articles/852411/how-new-orleans-flooding-risks-are-exacerbated-by-climate-change
See: https://theweek.com/articles/852411/how-new-orleans-flooding-risks-are-exacerbated-by-climate-change
Look, managing disasters is complicated which is why it’s SO important to have EM scholars be part of the climate conversation. Stopping climate change isn’t the only thing we have to do to stop disasters because it’s not the only cause of disasters. http://www.disaster-ology.com/home/2019/9/6/the-climate-conversation-must-include-emergency-management
As Mary points out, calling them climate disasters creates a similar problem to calling them natural disasters. In fact, I just wrote a thread about this yesterday after @chrislhayes used the term in a tweet about post-disaster homelessness. https://twitter.com/samlmontano/status/1207449072216481792?s=21
Mary said I'd be mad at this episode. I’m not mad at all! I’m THRILLED to hear people (with platforms!) grapple with disasters.
THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS!!
THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS!!
The climate crisis requires the development of new language to explain our changing reality. Language creation is difficult and I’m grateful to get to be a part of doing this work.
Disaster researchers, including myself, need to be better at offering an explanation as opposed to just offhandedly tweeting about this. We shouldn’t be asking people to figure this out on their own. It’s our responsibility as experts to educate.
This was an important reminder that what feels obvious to experts is not obvious to non-experts. Researchers have known disasters aren’t natural for at least half a century and it clearly has not made its way into the public consciousness and I think it’s important to ask why.
It’s easy to blame journalists, politicians, and industry for perpetuating this myth but I think it’s also important for researchers to reconsider our own approaches to public engagement.
A helpful resource (particularly for journalists) are the folks at @NoNatDisasters.
https://www.nonaturaldisasters.com/useful-information
I hope this thread is helpful and not confusing.
Happy to answer any other clarifying questions if it helps!
https://www.nonaturaldisasters.com/useful-information
I hope this thread is helpful and not confusing.
Happy to answer any other clarifying questions if it helps!
