Humans do a poor job of calculating risk. That's terrible for the climate crisis

Queens residents sort through damaged and destroyed items after the remnants of Hurricane Ida swept through New York City and flooded homes in September.

(CNN)When the remnants of Hurricane Ida flooded Francisco Carrillo's basement apartment in Queens, New York, last year, his subsequent displacement was a wake-up call. He knew the climate crisis was real, but it was the first time he'd ever endured its nearly deadly consequences.

As the floodwater rose rapidly, Carrillo grabbed what few, precious belongings he could carry and escaped with his life. When he returned, he was overwhelmed with the stench of festering mold and water damage.
"If we don't change the way that we think, it's going to be worse," Carillo, who is still living in a temporary shelter more than three months after Ida struck, told CNN last month. "And I think all of this is our responsibility, but we can still be the difference."
Despite year after year of climate change-fueled disasters, the world is no closer to capping fossil fuel emissions, which would halt the increasing severity of natural disasters. Instead, emissions continue to rise amid pledges and promises to (eventually) rein them in.
Humans do a poor job of evaluating climate risk and taking preventative care to avoid the worst, and we are literally paying the price.
Over the past five years, extreme weather disasters have cost the United States more than $750 billion. The price tag pales in comparison to the cost of the clean energy measures in Democrats' Build Back Better package: $555 billion over the course of 10 years. Analysts tell CNN those clean energy incentives would get the US within spitting distance of President Joe Biden's ambitious goal to slash carbon emissions in half by 2030.
Reaching the goal would take a big bite out of global carbon emissions and go a long way to prevent climate disasters from being so severe in the US, ultimately saving lives and saving the country money. But the full package remains on thin ice in Washington, with opponents saying it's too much to spend.
It's a high-stakes example of what plays out in all of our minds as we weigh risk versus the cost of prevention.
"Never underestimate the power of the human mind to rationalize its way out of reality," Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, told CNN. "People are way more complicated because they come preloaded with all these prior beliefs and attitudes and values and politics."
President Joe Biden speaks at a press conference on the grounds of National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Arvada, Colorado, in September.
Since 2008, the Yale program has surveyed Americans every six months on their attitude toward the climate crisis. The group found in December just 33% of Americans are "alarmed" about the crisis — something scientists say we should be — and strongly support climate action. Another 25% are "concerned" global warming is a significant threat, yet are less likely to be taking action.
That leaves less than 50% of the US population with the least concern and understanding about climate risk.
"For many people, climate change is not even something that enters their consciousness," Leiserowitz said.

'Hero worship mentality'

Lisa Robinson, deputy director of Harvard University's Center for Health Decision Science, said it's less that humans are bad at judging risk, and more that we are overwhelmed by more acute pressures competing for our attention, such as Covid-19, being able to afford groceries or rent, or getting the kids through school.
"No matter how smart we are, how well-educated we are, we all have limits to how much information we can process," Robinson told CNN. "We each make like a gazillion decisions every single day. If we have to think hard about every single one of them, we wouldn't survive."
Emissions rise from the coal-fired John E. Amos Power Plant in Winfield, West Virginia.
And there's another psychological mechanism preventing us from dwelling on things that could harm us, according to Lise Van Susteren, a psychiatrist in Washington, DC, and advisory board member to the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.
When reality is distressing, our brains are wired to defend ourselves from knowing the truth. On the flip side, we have an "optimism bias" that favors pleasing information, and we tend to engage the parts of our brain that reward us.