[machinerychorus]

I just don't understand how people can believe in climate change and also believe that "ROI for me and my shareholders" is still a good way to make decisions. Buffett certainly isn't going to be an activist investor, because pushing oil companies to change will provide worse ROI than just staying the course. We need to be doing more to combat climate change, including a carbon tax. If that happens, oil companies will be much less profitable, so it seems like Buffett is betting that won't happen, which seems like a very cynical and coldhearted move.

Also, let's not forget that us humans have to live in the environment, so "a terrible cost for the environment" is a terrible cost for humans. Unfortunately, that cost is externalized so it doesn't affect Buffetts precious ROI.

[derf_]

> ... it seems like Buffett is betting that won't happen ...

At the end of 2021, Berkshire owned about $4.5 billion of Chevron shares. In that same year, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, which has made huge investments in wind and solar, had $4 billion in earnings [0]. BHE is investing $18 billion (starting in 2006 and continuing through 2030) to modernize the electrical grid to improve transmission from the remote areas that are the best sources of wind and solar energy (as opposed to near coal plants). BNSF, Berkshire's railroad, which is a far more carbon-efficient way to move freight than roads and trucking, invested $41 billion in fixed assets between 2010 and 2020 [1].

It is possible for someone's approach to energy investing to be multi-faceted.

[0] https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2021ltr.pdf [1] https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2020ltr.pdf

[wizofaus]

>so "a terrible cost for the environment" is a terrible cost for humans.

In fact that's the only meaningful/sensible way to interpret the phrase "terrible cost for the environment". For most of the planet's history even while supporting all sorts of weird and wonderful lifeforms, the environment would have been pretty hostile to humans, and almost certainly unable to support 9+ billion of us. In principle with enough tech some of humanity could survive even without a hospitable natural environment, but it's not an existence many would choose.

[tootallgavin]

Because at the end of a life, you either live like Picasso or live like Dalí

both made fortunes, but one thought it was a good idea to give it all away

I prefer to live like Dalí, the fruits of my labor are for my children

[machinerychorus]

That's all fine and well, I'm not saying you should give away all your money. I'm just saying that there are lots of things to invest in that aren't fossil fuels!

Your money isn't the only thing you leave to your children - you also leave this planet. Do you want to give your children a planet that is more impoverished and conflict-ridden?

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/about/frequently-asked-qu...

[starkd]

Or maybe less people agree that it is really as dire as you seem to think it is.

[pieter_mj]

Ignoring externalities should be illegal, or even outright criminal.