If Katrina taught us anything, it’s to never underestimate the power of Mother Nature. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina plummeted through Florida, Louisiana and much of the Southeast, causing roughly $100 billion worth of damage in the process — the costliest hurricane in U.S. history. 

With Hurricane Sandy, the number one priority is recovery — a feat Gov. Mitt Romney seems to believe can be solved by a twitch of his nose. Romney emphasized in a 2011 GOP debate that disaster relief should be managed on the state level, limiting the role of federal grants. If Romney’s approach to disaster relief were enacted during Hurricane Sandy, what would the East Coast look like? Let’s use Romney’s lens to create a better picture.

New York and New Jersey were projected to be the states hit the hardest from day one. However, neither state is unfamiliar with hurricanes. In August 2011, Hurricane Irene made landfall in both states, causing $19 billion worth of destruction. As states located in a geographical area are more prone to hurricanes, a state without the help of the federal government cannot handle the unexpected onslaught of a superstorm. For example, we can’t expect the entire $10 billion in damages done to New York’s transportation infrastructure to be settled by the state alone, especially not with all the other damages done to New York City and the rest of the state. In all of the cuts Romney would make in his proposed budget, disaster relief for storms like this are not exempt: To pare down domestic spending, Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) budget could be cut drastically. Romney would prefer that some of the federal money for disaster relief be given to the states to let them handle it by themselves, with the NGOs and private money helping out along the way. 

This is how Romney sees it through his foggy lens when he said this during a 2011 GOP primary: “We cannot afford (disaster relief) without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids.” So, Gov. Romney, are you saying that it is more immoral for the federal government to provide necessary relief than it is to sit and do nothing, while hundreds of thousands are without power?

The money that the states cannot makeup then is expected to come from NGOs like the Red Cross, religious organizations like the Salvation Army and private donations. 

The thing is, Gov. Romney, natural disasters in the United States are 100 percent inevitable, and so is their damage. If the purpose of ending federal disaster relief is to lower the federal deficit, I’m still not moved. Essentially, this may look like it’s relieving the deficit, but it will just project back onto individual states. They will be forced to reassess their budgets and allocations and develop local initiatives and policies to make up lost federal money. States will be forced to reduce their spending to compensate for the loss of federal money in areas of high importance such as state education and health care that also promote jobs and business growth. Seems ironic that a proclaimed “business guru” would push for a policy that would take away from, well, business. 

Even though Obama proposed cutting FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund from $7.1 billion to $6.1 billion, the cuts are still far smaller than what the Romney-Ryan ticket proposes. 

Still, it has been quite a stormy term for President Obama considering he has declared a record-breaking 2,000 disaster declarations and counting. 

Whatever the political implications are, the environmental implications are far greater. The increase in disaster declarations is merely a reflection of the changing climate. And for those in denial, let me reestablish that we are witnessing a hurricane in the last week of October, a phenomenon that has only happened 11 times since 1950. Additionally, with the increased attention to the climate, it’s safe to assume we will find more natural disasters than in previous decades purely because we are “looking” for them. However, this does not explain the increase in hydro-meteorological, or weather-related, disasters. In 1980, about 100 of these disasters were reported. Since 2000, only 20 years later, the number of hydro-meteorological disasters nearly tripled to about 300. Clearly, the need for disaster relief is more than just a valid facet of disaster response. Relief demands increasing amounts of money as climate change produces more dramatic and more destructive natural disasters — something Romney feels the government has no purpose in.

The same Republican presidential candidate that made a “moral” decision to stop campaigning out of respect for Sandy, is the candidate that wishes to disregard the magnitude and effects of similar storms with the mentality that it’s “their job, not ours.” Frankly, I think Romney’s refresher course in morals is long overdue. How ironic that Romney can claim morality in tentatively stopping campaigning for Sandy, yet claim that it is immoral to help these people as president. Recovery, Gov. Romney, can’t be done alone.

Adam is a junior in ACES. He can be reached at [email protected].