Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of BRK.ABest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of BRK.ABest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (31) |
Author: mungofitch 🐝🐝🐝 GOLD
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 21943 
Subject: Re: Wind & Solar
Date: 08/28/25 10:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 20
Shipping a case of pinot noir from France or chardonnay from Australia for consumption within local distribution distance of west coast vineyards, only to sell all of the bottles at around the same price point? By weight, the products are almost all glass and water.

The reasoning sounds so simple, but that's why it's important to debunk it. If there are no subsidies and it costs (say) $0.25 to ship an incremental bottle, you likely haven't used as much energy (or created as much energy-related pollution) as, say, driving a mile in a big SUV to a local farmers' market.*

True, maybe it was $0.25 worth of energy that didn't really have to be used, but it really is one of those fields of endeavour that you have to have a sense of proportion. Sweating the little stuff is not just a waste of time, it is actively bad because it distracts from what's actually important and causes many to throw up their hands in "it's all the same, you can't win" surrender.

Subsidies and negative externalities certainly matter, but they generally don't change the "sort order" of activities or products by much. Most things aren't subsidized by more than 100% of their cost, and the true economic cost of most bad externalities are not more than a few times the size of the market cost of the same thing.

If you really want to be green with a sense of proportion? Don't have kids (bigger factor than all other factors combined), be dirt poor (bigger factor than all remaining factors combined), don't drive or fly much (mainly walk to work), and don't buy beef or lamb.

Jim

* A typical Australia-to-Europe container ship run uses around 2 million gallons of bunker fuel.
It would typically hold around 10000 20 ft containers, so 200 gallons of fuel burned per container.
A typical (but full) 20ft container will hold around 10000 standard sized bottles of wine for shipment, so .02 gallons of fuel per bottle of wine, about 2.6 US fluid ounces. Like burning a single candle during your dinner with that wine from the other side of the planet.
A large SUV might get 0.3 to 0.5 miles on that much gasoline.

As elann pointed out, the fact that the shipping is very cheap is an outstanding clue that it's not all that bad environmentally.

Jim

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to mungofitch here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 21,448 posts about Berkshire Hathaway. The article-length ones it recommended most:
BRK: Why Not XOM? · 62 recs · 2024
Second quarter comments · 60 recs · 2023
Berkshire's Profit Contributors · 57 recs · 2023
Summary of 2Q 2026 · 54 recs · 2026
3Q Summary · 53 recs · 2024
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (31) |


Announcements
Berkshire Hathaway FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of BRK.A | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community