The editorial page of the New York Times recently hammered Mitt Romney with a piece called “A Big Storm Requires Big Government.” The paper’s editorial board took to task the Republican presidential nominee for his statement that the functions of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should be returned to the states or, even better, handed off to private entities.

During a crisis, the national government can certainly play a vital role in coordinating the sharing of information related to a storm event’s path and in encouraging evacuation and other protective investments. In the absence of a strong Federal response, adjacent states may have trouble coordinating decisions over bridge closings and other shared infrastructure.

But we also have to acknowledge one of the unintended consequences of the agency’s existence: it squelches our ability to adapt to climate change. That by itself is a good reason to get rid of it (for the most part).

For a minute, imagine that there was no FEMA and each geographic location was on its own, forced to use private insurance and state-level funds to rebuild after disasters. Such constraints would likely encourage less risk taking before a disaster. When coastal states saw that their own resources would be used to repair flood damage, for instance, than political leaders would have stronger incentives to discourage housing development in flood-prone areas and to encourage greater investments in precautions like tree trimming to reduce storm damage. The net effect of such a shift in the rules of the game could be a significant reduction the cost of natural disasters. Without FEMA, states and municipalities would have better incentives to make direct investments in protecting their territory. That seems to be a clear call to do away with the agency.

But FEMA has another role too: through it, the federal government plays a major role in re-investing in affected areas. Lower Manhattan, for instance, is the home of Wall Street, justifying national intervention through FEMA to get the area back on its feet. But this raises the question of whether it is fair and efficient to take tax dollars collected in one geographic location and redistribute it to a region devastated by disaster. There are surely unintended consequences that come with such implicit insurance. Put bluntly, moral hazard arises as more economic activity is likely to locate in harm’s way along the pretty coast.

But, again, imagine life without FEMA. Would Wall Street, the industry, stay on Wall Street? There’s no good reason it has to be located in lower Manhattan, and without the assurance that FEMA would help it get on its feet, the industry and its associated would have more incentive to move to higher ground. Or New York City, which benefits inordinately from having Wall Street within its borders, would have to offer more and better protection.

It’s not as if no one saw this disaster coming. NYC was settled because its location made it easy for ships to get there. This same ease-of-location has made it vulnerable to storms and flooding. The part of the calculus that’s changed isn’t NYC’s location — it’s right where it’s always been. What’s changed is the weather. As climate change has increased the probability of monster storms (“events,” in meteorologist-speak), we have to face up to the fact that protecting existing assets will get increasingly expensive. The option is to move those assets: to shift, for instance, the New York Stock Exchange uptown, where it can stay high and dry.

That would help make our calculus a little clearer. In the case that institutions of national interest moved out of the danger zone, then what would FEMA’s role in reinvestment be? First and foremost, it would be in protecting people’s lives, but it would be hard to see how FEMA would do a better job than local services (provided the state had made appropriate investments). Should scarce federal funds be used to subsidize those who choose to stay in flood zones where the risk of catastrophic damage is only going to go up every year? And should FEMA subsidize Donald Trump’s Manhattan real estate portfolio?

The national investment strategy in the face of climate change shouldn’t only be about protecting what’s already there by mitigating risk, it should be about adapting to the new realities we face and nudging individuals and firms to seek out safer alternatives.

I’m not advocating that FEMA cease operation tomorrow and leave the residents of New Jersey and other areas affected by Sandy on their own. But I think — and I’m not alone — that we should have a national conversation about how we’re going to deal with an increasingly rapidly changing environment, and the tools of economic analysis should be part of that conversation.