A letter to the Guardian

A few weeks ago, The Guardian published a video in which its editor, Damian Carrington, explained why the term “natural disasters” should be removed from both media and political discourse. While it is true that there is no such thing as a natural disaster—a point that many organisations and researchers have been advocating for quite some time—I find the reasons provided by The Guardian to be inaccurate and, arguably, counterproductive. I wrote to Damian to express my concerns, offering what I believe is a clearer explanation of why disasters are not natural.

Dear Damian

I hope this message finds you well.

I am writing regarding a video The Guardian recently published on its Instagram account entitled “Why we need to stop saying ‘natural disaster’” and presented by you. While I wholeheartedly agree with the title and understand its objective - there is indeed an urgent need for abandoning the term ‘natural disaster’ - I found the reasoning provided in the video to be somewhat inaccurate and, arguably, counterproductive. With this in mind, I would like to take a few moments to share my perspective, hoping that in the future, The Guardian will consider incorporating these insights when producing this type of content. As a fellow geologist and (geo)science communicator, I feel a strong responsibility to share my views on this matter. While I recognise that you are likely familiar with much of what I write here, I nonetheless urge you to take it onboard as constructive criticism.

In your video, you state that research has shown many extreme events would not have occurred without decades of burning fossil fuels and the resulting alteration of climate patterns - a fact that is unquestionably true. You then argue that this is why we should abandon the term “natural disasters”: if such events would not have occurred, or not to the same intensity, without human-driven climate change, they cannot be considered natural. While this reasoning is valid, I believe it overlooks the primary argument that geographers, geologists, urban planners, and the UN have been making for nearly two decades: disasters are not natural because they are fundamentally political and social phenomena.

Moreover, focusing solely on climate change risks disempowering individuals by reinforcing a sense of helplessness: “If climate change is driven by burning of fossil fuels and that is controlled by high-level political and economic forces, what can I do?” This inadvertently undermines efforts to empower communities to advocate for risk-reducing policy choices proven to be effective in protecting people immediately.  With that in mind, I’d like to outline my argument in greater detail.

Focusing solely on climate change may disempower individuals by reinforcing a sense of helplessness.

A long-term concern.

Nearly 20 years ago, Neil Smith published a seminal article reflecting on the conditions that allowed Hurricane Katrina to become such a catastrophic event. In his work, he compellingly argues that “There’s No Such Thing as a Natural Disaster.” He highlighted what environmental geographers had been arguing since the 1970s, through the pioneering work of researchers like Gilbert F. White and Kenneth Hewitt: disasters are not merely the result of natural hazards but are deeply shaped by human decisions involving exposure and vulnerability. Building on this foundational research disaster risk reduction (DRR) frameworks - such as the UN’s Sendai Framework- have consistently emphasized that disasters arise when we fail to manage risk. This is why, for several years now, the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) has been running the “No Natural Disasters” campaign and grounds all its activities in this principle. Their aim is to demonstrate that disasters are fundamentally social phenomena, shaped by human decisions - even when triggered by natural hazards - and to encourage citizens to take action: holding political actors accountable for the damage and destruction caused by disasters and demanding policy interventions to prevent hazards from becoming disasters. Their guiding principle: disasters can be avoided.

Hazard, Exposure and Vulnerability, the Risk function.

Indeed, disasters occur when we fail to manage risk effectively, with risk being a product of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.

As with any equation, adjusting the variables alters the outcome.  While we cannot control the hazard, scientific advances now allow us to forecast most hazards with reasonable accuracy, often pinpointing their location, intensity, duration and likelihood. For instance, while we might not be able to predict when an earthquake will occur, we can map active, earthquake-generating faults and identify regions where ground shaking intensity is likely to be highest in the event of an earthquake. Similarly, we can model the areas most likely to flood or suffer landslides and the likely extent of such events. Equipped with this information, we can take action to address the other two variables: exposure and vulnerability.

By controlling exposure, we can prevent people and infrastructure from being placed in harm’s way. By addressing vulnerability, we can ensure that exposed infrastructure and communities are better equipped to withstand the impacts of a hazard event. Both factors are inherently political. Political decisions at local and national levels can, for instance, prohibit construction in floodplains, thereby reducing exposure. Alternatively, if building in such areas is unavoidable, structures can be designed with raised floors to protect people and assets during flooding. Similar strategies for reducing exposure and vulnerability - all reliant on political action and policies - can be applied to almost every type of hazard.

By controlling exposure, we can prevent people and infrastructure from being placed in harm’s way. By addressing vulnerability, we can ensure that exposed infrastructure and communities are better equipped to withstand the impacts of a hazard event. Both factors are inherently political.

Recent disasters are political.

Recent disasters are proof of how political this is. In Turkey, research and historical data had long established that the region was highly exposed to powerful earthquakes. Still fast-paced urban expansion led to thousands of buildings being constructed in areas of intense ground shaking, thereby increasing the vulnerability of local populations. To make matters worse, in 2018 the Turkish government launched a programme granting amnesty to builders who violated these codes, provided they paid fines. These violations included unlicensed construction, buildings with added floors or extended balconies. Poverty also meant countless overcrowded homes inhabited by low-income families with no alternative housing options. It is estimated that 13 million apartments were non-compliant with regulations. When the earthquake finally occurred, it became a disaster.

Aftermath of the 7th February, magnitude 7.8 Turkey Syria Earthquake.

In Spain, severe flooding has been a recurring issue for centuries with cold drop events being registered since at least 1356 when an estimated 500 people died. 1957’s floods prompted the implementation of the Plan Sur in 1964-1973, which rerouted the Turia River three kilometres south of Valencia’s centre. Howeer, since then, the population has increased by 66%, and the city has expanded southwards, between the new course of the Turia and the Barranc del Poyo River. Over this period, thousands of new homes, industrial infrastructure - such as the Paiporta site situated between two torrential watercourses - and hundreds of kilometres of roads have been built, all on floodplains. In October, while the centre of Valencia remained dry - proving that the river diversion had been successful - the entire area between the two watercourses was devastated. Even though this cold drop was particularly severe, the reality is that thousands of people were put at risk.

1957 flood in Valencia. Source: Wikipedia

Aerial image of Valencia’s metropolitan region showing the great urban expansion between the 1990’s and 2024.

In both instances, different political choices - choices that were entirely possible - could have resulted in far less dramatic outcomes.

Human activity has transformed nearly every corner of the planet. We urbanised floodplains, rerourted rivers, paved over soils, deforested vast regions, flattened coastal dunes and wetlands, and cultivated nearly all fertile land. While doing so, we have largely ignored the hazard profiles of these natural spaces. As a result, more people than ever are exposed to extreme events. Even if we had not altered the climate - and we undeniably have - these actions alone would have been sufficient to exponentially increase the number of disasters. Looking forward, the global average temperature has now exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, marking the first time this threshold has been surpassed for an entire year. This means that limiting global waming as outline in the Paris Agreement is now beyond reach and that extreme weather events will become a more frequent reality. However, this does not mean there is nothing we can do - quite the opposite!

“The technicians knew perfectly well that we live in a flood zone, we had studied it. But it was not enough to convince the institutions that construction had to stop.”

Iván Portugués, geography professor at the University of Valencia in “Valencia floods: the scandal of a disaster foretold”, Barney Jopson - Financial Times

As I hope to have demonstrated, even if aggravated by climate change, hazards are natural, but disasters are political. This underscores that different political choices lead to different outcomes when hazards occur, which is the fundamental reason to abandon the term “natural disaster.” While we must continue advocating for the cessation of fossil fuel use, I believe it is currently even more important - and arguably more effective, as it is more tangible - to encourage citizens to demand political action that safeguards their regions against extreme hazard events and other risks, such as earthquakes. Media outlets like The Guardian play a crucial role in this effort.

I therefore urge you to consider framing future content around this argument, rather than focusing primarily on the role of climate change. This approach empowers communities to demand risk-reducing policies and challenges political actors to prioritise risk-informed urban development that can protect people now

It is currently even more important - and arguably more effective, as it is more tangible - to encourage citizens to demand political action that safeguards their regions against extreme hazard events and other risks, such as earthquakes. Media outlets like The Guardian play a crucial role in this effort.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I look forward to seeing The Guardian continue its important work in raising awareness and driving meaningful change.

Best wishes

Sérgio Esperancinha