I argue the reason we don't have an instant fear of distant scenarios is exactly why we shouldn't rely on fear to deal with distant scenarios.

Our fear is indeed disconnected from distant threats. The function of fear is to react to immediate threats, and we can conjure the reaction of fear if we picture vividly a situation. However, the reaction induced by fear may not be what you want. Say you wear a virtual reality headset, and show someone the consequences of climate change, or X-risk. If the simulation is vivid enough, the subject will think "I must act on this threat now as if my life depended on it", but that would be trading inaction with panic.

Yes, your life depends on the resolution of the distant problems, but we shouldn't fear them as they were coming right now. Attempting to connect a distant threat to an immediate emotion fails, of course, which means we must devise other means to deal with the threat.

Conversely, saying a threat isn't important because we don't feel it threatening is a dangerous fallacy, I agree. The next step is to make distant threats credible by other means than emotion, because those don't trigger the kind of reaction we need to manage said threats.