RadMan24

Thematically, sure yes, the best mitigator to the most likely result of global warming is extended heat days and any sort of sane government action will be to incentivize high efficient HVACs, especially in areas that may not have ever thought they would need HVACs (or simple ACs), like Maine.

There have been two really smart investors that bought BRK in recent years when the stock was performing poorly relative to the S&P 500 due to lingering concerns about Buffett and such: Meryl Witmer and Greg Abel. Meryl bought in May 2020 at $173 for Brk. B - now $400 Abel bought Sept 2022/March 23 - call it $400,000 for Class A, now $600k.

https://www.ft.com/content/9619f503-6fd5-4256-8a5a-09eeebd08692 "Buffett sounds wildfire alarm as utilities industry enters new era"

I'll just start "dynamic ordering" -- place the order and then just drive off.

US DOJ threatening to sue Pacificorp is the reason for "collapse" Headlines came out 4 hours ago.

Thanks for sharing -- but it is clear through those documents that 1.) The rate increases will be large, but still below what other Western states/cities pay and 2.) Any major fire event in the next year or two will be catastrophic. Luckily the West has had a landslide of snow in the mountains and rain this winter, but we'll see how things play out.

WSJ picking up on the Japan investments: https://www.wsj.com/finance/stocks/warren-buffett-was-there-for-the-japanese-market-rally-deb6315c?mod=hp_lead_pos2

We'll see what differences are noted in the 2023 BHE investor presentation, whether there are any chnages to capital allocation plans or the like. Nevertheless, it is letters like these that make you realize how fortunate it is we have a whole weekend to ponder the results and outlook, without any 'trading' dynamic distractions influencing our thinking.

Agreed.

On the BHE thread, we were discussing the wildfire mitigation and impact, but I have to be honest, this letter was a sobering point of view, and one that really makes sense if this is how the regulatory bodies in certain states are going to proceed. Underground electrical wires are extensively expensive, forest management is also expensive, more and more people and property are in fire prone areas, and if "convective storms" do arise more often in the future, forest fires will simply be more intense given the growing biomass from more c02 in the atomosphere (the amount of plant biomass in most of the US is up 30% over the last 3-4 decades). It is refreshing to see however, Buffett state that he will not throw good money into bad.

Coal: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-09/firstenergy-scraps-2030-climate-goal-in-rare-embrace-of-coal

Keeping fires out of the forest -- letting dead trees and brush accumulate that - when ignitied - burns more foroscisuly and hotter than otherwise had natural fires been allowed over the past say 50+ years. So if Pacificorp's utility line falls down due to high wind, for example, and ignites a fire, in a fire suppressed area, ugly results can occur.

Yup, medium confidence is basically 50/50, inconclusive (behind likely, very likely and virtually certain). But, they had to put that and its a great alarm bell, there are long-term charts available it goes in waves, but hard to model out human ignition impacting natural rates (warming dries out, but atmopshere also holds more moisture, so its tough to know how it will unfold). And in some respects, i think at this point, we should just assume that climate change will be the leading rallying cry on wildfires for California on driving action. At least it has started to address some fire suppression and mitigating impacts. We truly need this across all states -- there'll be a far higher populice supporting mitigation and hardening of protections against such events, which would be a benefit to utilities and insurers in the long run. And the realities of the world aspect:

Exactly, and very good point raised here that often isn't talk about. If we really want to limit damage to climate change, the government should refuse to pick up the tab for flood insurance in flood areas. Nevertheless, this situation is dire in Pakistan and the Himalyas, an epic flood plane. But so is Austin, Texas. And that money would be better spent on covering low income familities energy bills during heat extremes in the US, which is the primary risk factor of climate change -- extended heat waves (not neccessairly in temperature, but perhaps in duration).

The IPCC provides no strong link between wildfires in the US and climate change. And as you mention, the luxury of lifestyle in the suburban forests -- because of the fire suppression -- has hidden these risks. Wildfires are a form of weather. If you want the climate impact, you have to look back over 30 year periods, at least. Perhaps a third point of which I've left out is that most, if not the vast majority of wild fires, are human ignition. Edit: To your point - the less talk about "climate change science" and more talk about mitigating risks associated with extreme weather events given the expansion of the human population and its impact on the environmnet the more likely we are to limit the impacts of climate change over time.