answer:You’re creating a false issue here. Getting on a plane with a 10% chance of crashing is immediate. You get on a plane and you might die. That’s an entirely different type of thing from something which abstract (what does “crashing” mean?) that is a half century away, and that may or may not take place? Immediacy is one thing. Something that might happen in the future is an entirely different issue. The other problem is one of the degree that I, as an individual, can avert the situation. In the plane crash scenario, I personally can make the decision not to board that plane. My decision is not based on the actions of others. And there is immediate cause and effect. I don’t get on the plane, and I am safe (except for the drive home). In the climate issue, there is literally nothing I can do. (Yes, I can demonstrate and fulminate) My fate is not personal. It is in the hands of 5 billion other people who all have to act in unison, and further in the hands of politicians, who rarely, if ever, have my interests in mind. So even if your question (three Sandys) takes place, and even (long-shot) if the US government takes an interest, the rest of the world is unlikely to make serious changes. The bottom line is that your comparison simply doesn’t hold water.