(MintPress) – Last weekend, one of the largest storms to hit the United States plowed through the Atlantic Seaboard. The near-record hurricane devastated cities from North Carolina to Upstate New York, killing 108 worldwide. With 15.3 inches of rainfall reported at Andrews Air Force Base, 94 mph wind gusts in Eatons Neck, N.Y., 33 inches of snow in Clayton, W.Va., and more than 7.5 million residents without power, according to CNN — this storm has devastated the Eastern United States, causing billions of dollars in damages. The second major storm to hit the New York area in two years, many meteorologists believe that this storm may be a harbinger of the effects of climate change, with worse storms predicted in the future.
In consideration of the wildfires in the West, the droughts affecting the Great Plains and the severe tornadoes and killer tropical storms affecting the Midwest, Southeast and Northeast, the climatological events of this year suggest that we are now living in a world in flux, in which weather patterns have grown dangerous and unpredictable, with things promising to get worse. However, in the United States, a debate that most of the rest of the world has settled years ago rages on, and — at its core — lies questions on the security of all Americans.
Last month, the House voted on several bills meant to take on what the Republicans call a “White House war on coal” — a package which includes HR 3409 (“Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Protection Act”) and other previously passed legislation to block enforcement of greenhouse gas rules by the Environmental Protection Agency.
This package omits scientific concerns of climate change while keeping the scope of the issue international in scope and priority. The previous version — passed in April 2011 — says that the United States has a “role to play in resolving global climate change matters on an international basis.” Omitted from the new bill is, “There is established scientific concern over warming of the climate system based upon evidence from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”
It is no secret that Republicans generally deny climate change. During the Republican National Convention, Mitt Romney famously panned, “President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet … My promise is to help you and your family.”
A few weeks later, Mr. Romney adjusted his answer for the National Academies’ Science Debate:
“I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community…Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response.”
Unfortunately, there is a consensus on climate change. In a major study at Stanford University of 908 climate researchers — each of which has published at least 20 times on climate — of the top 200, only 2.5 percent (five researchers) dissented with climate change. Most identified dissenters are not actively publishing in the climate community or have a dubious record of publication.
The key problem is money. Many Republican corporate supporters make their money in carbon-producing industries: energy, lumber and paper, plastics and heavy manufacturing. Major Republican supporters the Koch brothers, for example, own Koch Industries, which owns Flint Hills Resources, a major petroleum refinery, Koch Minerals — which produces coke, coal, cement and paper; Georgia-Pacific, a major paper product producer; and INVISTA B.V., a polymer and fiber producer.
This skepticism about the ecology is hurting the nation’s ranking in the world. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, 2012-2013, the United States has fallen from first in 2007 to seventh in 2012, in part due to the nation’s lack of embrace of new energy technologies.
However, a greater threat may be looming in this cloud of unreadiness.
Romney’s war against FEMA
During a June 13, 2011 Republican primaries debate, Mitt Romney inscribed his policy on federal disaster relief to moderator CNN’s John King:
JOHN KING: “What else, Governor Romney? You’ve been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I’ve been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it’s the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?”
MITT ROMNEY: “Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut — we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot…”
KING: “Including disaster relief, though?”
ROMNEY: “We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things 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, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.”
Early this year, in the House-passed budget that vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan helped in authoring, “Community and Regional Development” — the budget item line that includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — received an $8 billion cut from the president’s requested levels. It is unclear if any of these cuts would affect FEMA’s funding, but it seems likely.
More telling is Paul Ryan’s resistance to the Farm Bill this year, which offered emergency relief to farmers in the drought-impacted Great Plains. Ryan demanded large cuts to the bill, including limiting food stamps for the poor, before ultimately voting along party lines for the bill.
In all, Republicans have not concealed their disdain for federal aid programs. The primary argument is one of governmental jurisdiction: The Republican Party feels that the Federal government should only involve itself in activities the states cannot do for themselves. This is an old argument; it was the impetus for the Civil War.
Now, 140 years later, the issue is still an open sore.
Despite Ryan’s spokesperson Brendan Buck’s argument to the contrary, as reported from Yahoo! News:
“Paul Ryan believes providing aid to victims of natural disasters is a critical obligation and should be treated as a high priority within a fiscally responsible budget…It’s sad that some see these heartbreaking events as opportunities to distort his record and play politics. A Romney-Ryan administration will always ensure that disaster funding is there for those in need. Period.”
An official from the Romney camp asserted this position, as reported from the Huffington Post, “Gov. Romney wants to ensure states, who are the first responders and are in the best position to aid impacted individuals and communities, have the resources and assistance they need to cope with natural disasters.”
This is all well and good, but it’s overlooking a major detail: Can the states afford to manage their own emergency response?
Passing the buck
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 31 states have projected or addressed budget deficits for the next fiscal year. As of the first quarter of 2012, state revenues are at 5.5 percent below pre-recession levels, and a full recovery is not expected soon. However, the population continues to grow. Educational and health care requirements continue to mount and must be met.
Almost every state has a balanced budget requirement, meaning that these increases mean a cut to a vital service somewhere else. While every state has an emergency response agency, few have the funding to offer the timely and adequate service FEMA offers, and typically, state agencies offer reserve assistance to FEMA teams on the ground.
In 2012, FEMA has a budget of $14.8 billion and more than 7,474 employees. Removing or diminishing FEMA places the burden of that funding to the states, and in disaster-prone states like Louisiana, Texas and Florida, the weight of this additional cost could crush them.
FEMA was started in the 1930s as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation during a time when federal government responses were popular. However, disasters in the 1960s and 1970s — including Hurricane Carla, Hurricane Betsy, Hurricane Camille, Hurricane Agnes and the Alaskan and San Fernando Earthquakes — exceeded the states’ ability to respond and legislation was passed to create the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, which — under President Carter in an attempt to form a cohesive response team of national, state and local authorities — became FEMA by Presidential Order in 1979.
Ultimately, FEMA exists because the states cannot respond to all emergencies on their own. Major disasters require leaders and a wealth of resources, and passing this responsibility to the states is — as President Truman once said, “passing the buck” — the problem still exists, but you no longer have to deal with it; it’s someone else’s responsibility.
Most would agree that such motives are immoral.
The “bang your head against the wall” moment
Republicans’ opposition to FEMA and rejection of climate change suggest a naivety that translates to most other people as a “bang your head against the wall” moment, in which logic escapes the argument and the only rational action is to bang your head until things start to make sense.
Many Democrats and world leaders have dents in their walls for exactly this reason. But, a change may be coming. Many Republicans, including former South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis (who lost his seat for supporting climate change claims), are creating lobbyist groups and think tanks that bolster creating a conservative approach to embracing global warming, such as the Energy and Enterprise Initiative at George Mason University and the Young Conservatives for Energy Reform.
In addition, national platforms are weakening with the popular rejection of climate change. It may be soon that climate change may cease to be a debate issue in this country.
Complicating things and adding to the attractiveness of the wall is the political nature of FEMA’s activities. Bush administration FEMA Director Michael Brown, as reported in the Capitol Hill Blue, criticized the president of moving too quickly in response to the Hurricane Sandy crisis:
“One thing he’s gonna be asked is, why did he jump on [the hurricane] so quickly and go back to D.C. so quickly when in … Benghazi, he went to Las Vegas? Why was this so quick? … At some point, somebody’s going to ask that question … This is like the inverse of Benghazi.”
Newt Gingrich seconded this notion, “You’ll notice he’s canceling his trips over the hurricane. He did not cancel his trips over Benghazi.”