In recent years, there has been a developing trend of labelling some disasters as ‘climatechange disasters’. In doing so, a discursive phenomenon can emerge that the authors havecoined ‘climatization’ which is specified as framing a disastrous event or degraded environmentalcondition as caused by climate change, in order to reach an intended goal or to distractthe discussion from the real problem which might have a different root course than caused bythe climate change effects.
The implications of climatization are currently unclear – particularly to what extent climatizinga disaster might increase or decrease the vulnerability of a population at risk ofdisaster. The purpose of this paper is thus to open up the concept of climatization to investigation,and examine what affect such a discursive framing might have on public andpolitical perception.
Climatization is here discussed in the context of Bangladesh – a country that is expectedto be among the worst affected by climate change and a country in which some peopleclaim the effects of climate change can already be seen. A qualitative field study whichincluded key informant interviews, focus group discussions and a literature review wasconducted in Bangladesh.
The study found recent examples of climatization related to Cyclone Aila (2009) and saltwater intrusion in Bangladesh. In most cases these disasters were climatized in order tocreate a sense of urgency in order to push for an increase in financial aid to Bangladeshand to deflect responsibility for inaction that led up to the disaster. This study urges cautionas there is a potential for climatization to be used as a means to cover up negligence orbad management and there is a risk that by climatizing a disaster key vulnerabilities maybe overlooked.