Why we should refer to 'Disasters' or 'Natural Hazards' rather than 'Natural Disasters'

Here is an excerpt from a paper from Salvano Briceno, Director of the Secretariat of the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), which explains why we shouldn't use natural disasters. There are many more older papers on this topic (also the book 'At Risk'), but he gives a very clear explanation:

"The most serious aspect of the threat is the rapid increase in exposure and vulnerability of populations, particularly those in urban areas to natural events, which themselves are increasing but at a much lower speed. Hence, the need to address the disaster risk issue with terms other than ‘‘natural disasters.’’ This reorientation in terminology is essential to avoid creating a misunderstanding of the problem. The concept behind this shift in terminology is that the phrase ‘‘natural disasters’’ conveys the perception that if disasters are natural there is little that can be done, except by preparing to respond to them, instead of reducing vulnerability and building resilience, which need to be the focus of risk reduction and management policies. This is why scholars increasingly try to avoid speaking about ‘‘natural disasters’’ and rather refer only to ‘‘disasters’’ or ‘‘natural hazards.’’ When needed, reference to ‘‘disasters triggered by natural hazards’’ or, more specifically, ‘‘disasters due to vulnerability to natural hazards’’ are the preferred expressions. This terminology revision was an essential component in the negotiations for the HFA. For many government authorities, it has been convenient to blame disasters on nature, hence their preference for maintaining the term ‘‘natural disasters.’’ Despite official reluctance, ‘‘natural disaster’’ is no longer utilized in the HFA document, except in a footnote to explain why it should not be used."