Warren Buffett Is Wrong About Climate Change

Warren Buffett doesn't want you to know how his empire is preparing to deal with the disastrous effects of climate change. In fact, he said in a letter released Saturday, he isn't exactly sure this whole "climate change" thing is real, anyway.

In his annual letter to investors in his conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway, the billionaire investor fought back against a proposed shareholder resolution demanding his insurance subsidiaries measure and disclose the risks that climate change poses to their business and how the company is responding to the threat. Buffett compared fears over climate change to the brouhaha around apocalyptic Y2K predictions.

“It seems highly likely to me that climate change poses a major problem for the planet,” the 85-year-old wrote in the letter, released Saturday morning. “I say ‘highly likely’ rather than ‘certain’ because I have no scientific aptitude and remember well the dire predictions of most ‘experts’ about Y2K.”

Insurance companies take on losses after major weather disasters (think droughts, Hurricane Katrina and other big storms), so it makes sense they'd be concerned about climate change. If that's true, why would Buffett say he's not so sure this is real? Because skepticism is better business.

Buffett isn’t denying climate change, but rather using language climate deniers feel comfortable with and will likely cite in future attempts to derail environmental policy. Climate change affects Buffett's business: He owns a Nevada utility that has fought and won against solar development in that state, and his railroad, Burlington Northern, in large part depends on the demand for coal and oil.

Buffett argues in favor of seeing climate change as a likely risk to the world, but against the need for more oversight, transparency or regulation of his companies. It’s a position he’s taken before -- Buffett argued against designating reinsurers, of which he owns the world’s fifth-largest, as too-big-to-fail institutions. Though he said he never spoke directly to regulators about the issue, he made his views public. Regulators, thus far, have agreed.

Why Buffett's Words Matter

Markets, governments and companies aren’t properly pricing the risk of climate change. For instance, are beachfront homes in low-lying areas as valuable as their owners believe? Experts reckon that only once markets and others attach a price to the threat of climate change will the rest of the world finally move to limit the potential consequences. If insurers -- which must grow their assets in order to make good on their guarantees -- measure the potential losses they could incur as a result of climate change, they can then price that risk. Then everyone else could follow.

Buffett's views against disclosure put him in sharp disagreement with Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who has said that financial markets can help limit the effects of climate change, but only if companies -- such as insurers -- supply the kind of information that Buffett doesn't want to disclose. 

In September remarks to the insurance industry, the chief overseer of the world’s third-largest insurance sector warned about the numerous economic and financial risks posed by climate change. Carney urged companies, particularly insurers, to start taking seriously their responsibility to measure their potential losses. Their own solvency could be at stake, Carney warned.

Insurance companies invest their money in places like the stock market. But “stranded" oil, gas and coal reserves, left in the ground due to the world’s commitment to halt rising temperatures, could render related financial assets worthless. Or the disruption of trade resulting from an extreme weather event could affect related investments.

Cynthia McHale, director of the insurance program for Ceres, a nonprofit group that pushes investors to pay attention to the financial risks of climate change, said in an interview earlier this month that neither insurers nor their government overseers have a good handle on the risks that climate change poses to insurers’ various financial assets.

McHale compared the situation to the one faced by big banks in 2008, when few sufficiently realized the magnitude of potential losses from the U.S. property bust. 

Weathering Heights

Buffett's case against the resolution boils down to this: “Thinking only as a shareholder of a major insurer, climate change should not be on your list of worries.”

First, he said, his company can handle any possible losses thanks to rising premiums. Because insurance policies are typically written for one year and repriced annually, Buffett's company can hike premiums to better account for the heightened risk of climate change-driven losses.

Second, Buffett asserts that climate change has produced neither “more frequent nor more costly hurricanes nor other weather-related events covered by insurance.”

But eight of the 10 costliest hurricanes in U.S. history, in terms of insured losses, have occurred since 2000, according to the Insurance Information Institute. Nine of the 10 costliest floods in U.S. history, when measured by payouts from the federal government’s National Flood Insurance Program, also have occurred since 2000, according to the insurance group.

NOAA

The U.S. experienced five different types of extreme weather last year. 

Munich Re, the world’s biggest reinsurer, estimated that extreme weather events led to $510 billion in insured losses from 1980 to 2011.

Carney said that according to Lloyd’s of London, the world’s oldest insurance market, the roughly 8-inch rise in sea level at the tip of Manhattan since the 1950s increased the insured losses from Hurricane Sandy by 30 percent in New York alone.

PAUL J. RICHARDS via Getty Images

A house in Staten Island, New York, hit in Hurricane Sandy. Scientists say we should prepare for more weather events like the massive storm.

Insurance companies should care about climate change from a selfish perspective if they want to stay in business. Carney has warned that insurers that jack up premiums or exit markets after realizing the potential losses associated with climate change could unwittingly cause the value of their own assets to shrink.

He also warned about potential losses from claims on policies written by insurers. For example, insurance companies could be forced to make massive payouts if victims of climate change successfully hold accountable companies that contributed to it. He likened the situation to the one faced by U.S. insurers stung by tens of billions of dollars in losses from asbestos claims.

In fact, Carney said that as a result of recent weather trends, some now estimate that insurers are undervaluing their potential losses by as much as 50 percent.

Insurance companies caught unprepared for the effects of climate change could cause problems for government officials and put taxpayers at risk.

For example, governments may have to cover markets that insurers dump as a direct result of climate change, the Bank of England chief said, putting taxpayers on the hook.

Bloomberg via Getty Images

Mark Carney, the U.K.'s top central banker, says insurers may be undervaluing their potential risks by 50 percent. 

What Could Change If Insurers Opened Up About This Risk

Disclosing climate change information would improve policymaking, Carney said. It could make climate policy more like monetary policy, where officials who set interest rates often tinker with their stance based on markets’ reactions.

The Financial Stability Board, a global group of the world’s financial regulators, wants financial companies to disclose their risks, too.

Some state insurance regulators in the U.S. are demanding insurers take the threat posed by climate change into account when investing their customers’ money and underwriting insurance policies. Washington state’s insurance regulator, Mike Kreidler, has criticized some insurers for failing to take climate change risks seriously, arguing their own solvency was at risk.

Buffett sounded more alarmed by the prospect of climate change in 2007, when scientific evidence of the impacts of climate change was less well-understood. In his annual letter that year, Buffett wondered aloud whether the deadly and expensive hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 marked the first warning of a new type of climate.

“It would be a huge mistake to bet that evolving atmospheric changes are benign in their implications for insurers,” Buffett wrote in his letter.

He warned that it was “naïve” to think of Hurricane Katrina -- the costliest hurricane in U.S. history -- “as anything close to a worst-case event.”

“These could rock the insurance industry,” Buffett added.

 

Half Of New Cars Could Be Electric By 2040

Electric vehicles could make up half of all new car sales by 2040, as long as oil prices eventually increase, according to a study released Thursday by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The cost of the lithium-ion batteries that power electric vehicles is quickly decreasing, but sales suffered last year as oil slid below $30 per barrel, making gas-guzzling vehicles more affordable in the United States. If oil remains at rock-bottom prices, it could delay electric vehicles from becoming mainstream for at least the next four years.

“In a scenario where they become widespread in fleets and ride sharing scheme, new EV sales could reach 50% of new car sales by 2040,” Salim Morsy, senior analyst at BNEF, wrote in the study. “However, persistently low crude oil prices could also keep adoption as low as 25% by 2040.”

Electric vehicles currently make up about 1 percent of global annual car sales. Four major factors will determine whether they'll make up half of the market by 2040.

First, battery prices must continue to fall. This is likely to happen for a few reasons. Demand continues to be high, as more automakers release electric vehicles and the energy storage industry begins to pick up pace. To fill those orders, manufacturers are upping their production. Tesla, for example, is building a $5 billion factory in Nevada that will, at its peak, produce more lithium-ion packs per year than were created in the entire world in 2013.

“It’s very important, insofar as being a first move for establishing large-scale manufacturing assets globally,” Morsy told The Huffington Post on Wednesday. “But, relative to the install demand needed in the future to supply what we project to be demand, it is certainly not as important.”

Second, self-driving technology must become commercially viable. At the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas last month, nearly every major automaker unveiled some kind of autonomous driving technology. And with good reason: Google is testing driverless, electric cars. Tesla just released a limited autonomous feature that allows its cars to steer themselves. Uber last year raided Carnegie Mellon University's robotics department, hiring away its top scientists to develop self-driving technology that will eventually replace its drivers. 

Analysts expect Tesla, Uber and other car companies to eventually own and operate fleets of autonomous vehicles. If they're advanced enough to drive themselves, they'll ideally be advanced enough not to use oil.

Third, oil prices need to bounce back. Unless the price of crude returns to $50 and $70, as some predict it will by 2020, electric vehicles are unlikely to exceed 5 percent of new sales in most markets for the next four years, Morsy said. Low price projections actually halve electric vehicles’ market share forecast. If current oil prices continue into the next decade, electric vehicles may only make up 25 percent of new car sales by 2040.

Fourth, the electric auto industry must overcome the fact that it’s navigating a combustion engine’s world. By 2030, BNEF expects charging ports to become standardized, much in the same way any vehicle on the road now can connect to a petrol pump at any gas station. Improved infrastructure -- and the normalization of plugging your car in nightly at home or at the office during the day -- will help the industry clear the range issue that has long dogged it. Just as no one likes having a dead smartphone, no one wants to be left with a car that runs out of battery.  

“By and large, by 2030, we think the infrastructure issues around charging EVs will be addressed,” Morsy said. “That means standardization around charging for vehicles -- at the moment, it’s not a standardized market -- as well as availability of charging points.”

Yet one of the biggest challenges to electric vehicle adoption may not be an economic headwind, but political sabotage. Last week, HuffPost reported that billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch are planning to launch a $10 million campaign aimed at once again killing the electric car. Still, at this point, the industry may be too far along.

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk, one of the most famous business leaders fighting to wean humanity off fossil fuels, summed it up nicely:

Sigh …https://t.co/VelOzAKIW6

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 19, 2016

White House Predicts Robots May Take Over Many Jobs That Pay $20 Per Hour

The White House is worried that robots are coming to take your job.

In a report to Congress this week, White House economists forecast an 83 percent chance that workers earning less than $20 per hour will lose their jobs to robots.

Wage earners who receive up to $40 in hourly pay face a 31 percent chance they'll be replaced by robots, while workers who are paid more than $40 an hour face much lower odds -- about 4 percent -- of losing their jobs to automation.

The estimates underscore the myriad threats facing low-wage workers in America, who in recent years have been buffeted by stagnant wages, decreasing employment prospects and higher education costs if they wish to obtain additional credentials in pursuit of better-paying jobs.

In an economy increasingly defined by the yawning gap between rich and poor, White House economists worry that increased automation could exacerbate inequality as the well-paid enjoy the fruits of robot-fueled gains in productivity while everyone else is left to fight for scraps.

One study cited by the White House found that automation has particularly hurt middle-skilled Americans, such as bookkeepers, clerks and some assembly-line workers. A lack of additional training and education opportunities led these workers to settle for lower-skilled positions, and likely lower wages.

Already, the White House noted in its report, most economists reckon that changes in technology are "partially responsible for rising inequality in recent decades."

Robots and other advances in technology are forecast to displace a significant number of blue- and white-collar workers, according to 48 percent of experts surveyed by the Pew Research Center in 2014. They also said that robots and so-called digital agents will displace more jobs than they create by 2025.

Many experts surveyed by Pew said they are concerned that the rise of robots and other technological advances "will lead to vast increases in income inequality, masses of people who are effectively unemployable, and breakdowns in the social order."

It's not a new worry. The famed economist John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1930 about "technological unemployment," or the theory that workers could be displaced due to society's ability to improve labor efficiency at a faster rate than finding new uses for labor.

But White House economists said they don't have enough information to judge whether increased automation will help or hurt the U.S. economy. For example, new jobs could emerge to develop and maintain robots or other new forms of technology.

"While industrial robots have the potential to drive productivity growth in the United States, it is less clear how this growth will affect workers," the White House said in its report.

There are two important questions, according to White House economists. First, if robots replace existing workers, will workers have enough bargaining power to share in their employers' newfound gains? Second, will the economy create new jobs fast enough to replace the lost ones?

Falling union membership -- some 11 percent of U.S. workers belonged to a union last year, down from about 20 percent in 1983 -- suggests that workers may not have much power to demand higher wages from employers who are automating them out of a job.

The economy could create enough new, good-paying jobs to help those displaced by robots, but the plight of manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs in recent decades as manufacturers moved abroad suggests that this, too, could be a challenge.

Instead, according to the White House, the key is to maintain a "robust training and education agenda to ensure that displaced workers are able to quickly and smoothly move into new jobs." With most Americans now financing higher education through debt -- about 1 in 8 Americans collectively owe $1.3 trillion on their student loans -- amid an era of sluggish wages, it's unclear whether higher debt burdens will lead to a better economic future.

MasterCard Wants You To Pay For Stuff With Selfies

MasterCard is rolling out a new strategy in the fight against credit card fraud: It wants you to pay for things with your face.

At the Mobile World Congress tech show in Barcelona this week, the credit card company unveiled its new “selfie pay” feature, which will allow cardholders to use an image of their face or a fingerprint to verify their identity when making payments online.

.@MasterCard is launching selfie payments https://t.co/jd71s9e4vp pic.twitter.com/LhCv6h3B0q

— CNNMoney (@CNNMoney) February 23, 2016

To use selfie pay, cardholders will have to download MasterCard’s app to their mobile device or tablet. Customers will still need to provide their credit card details to make purchases, but if further authentication is required, they can hold their device up to their face and take a photograph or use the device’s fingerprint sensor.

To prevent fraudsters from abusing the service, MasterCard said users will have to blink to prove they’re not holding a photograph up to the camera. The company said it also has algorithms in place that can detect if someone is using a previously-filmed video.

MasterCard plans on rolling out the feature in the coming months in several countries, including the U.S., Canada, the U.K. and parts of Europe.

The move came after a series of successful pilot tests last year. MasterCard told the BBC that 92 percent of its test subjects “preferred the new system to passwords.”

“I think the whole biometric space is a great way of protecting yourself when you are doing payments,” Ann Cairns, head of international markets for MasterCard, told CNBC. “There are a whole range of biometrics that say ‘I’m me, I'm making a payment’ and it just makes the whole thing more secure.”

According to The Verge, MasterCard is currently looking into other biometric security options beyond facial recognition and fingerprint scans. Specifically, the company is considering using sensors to read a person’s electrocardiogram -- the unique electrical signal produced by his or her heart.

“While even fingerprint or facial recognition requires input from the user, heartbeat recognition can take place seamlessly in the background,” The Verge explained. “You just wear a bracelet and it sends a signal to devices you're near to prove you're you.”

To prevent identity theft and fraud, many banks and companies are turning to biometrics to amp up security mechanisms. The Chinese e-commerce firm Alibaba recently introduced its own “selfie pay” feature while British bank HSBC announced new security measures this week that allow customers to authenticate their identity with a fingerprint or voice command.

“The problem with online payments has always been that the card doesn't need to be present, hence the credit card companies have charged more for the transactions to cover the costs of fraud,” Windsor Holden, head of forecasting at the U.K. tech consultancy Juniper Research, told the BBC. “If they can introduce a mechanism that makes the system more secure than merely asking for a password, then the hope would be that fraud levels decrease and the savings can be passed back onto merchants, and perhaps consumers too.”

Still, experts have warned that even biometric authentication measures like facial and fingerprint scans aren't foolproof. Privacy is also a concern. 

 

Why Does Dave Ramsey Want To Stop You From Saving Money?

If the most popular personal finance personality in the United States had a chance to save Americans billions of dollars a year, would he? Apparently not.

On Monday, Dave Ramsey came out against a rule being reviewed by the Obama administration that would require financial advisors to act in the best interest of their clients who are saving for retirement. The fiduciary rule, as it is known, was proposed last year and would apply to 401(K)s and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). 

Ramsey -- a personal finance guru who has written six New York Times bestsellers and has a talk-radio show that draws over 8 million listeners, behind only Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity -- said in a tweet that the rule would keep a wide swath of the population from getting personal investing advice. 

This Obama rule will kill the Middle Class and below ability to access personal advice. https://t.co/Eym2Jq5CUP

— Dave Ramsey (@DaveRamsey) February 22, 2016

Current law allows financial advisors to work on commission when they advise savers about retirement accounts. Advisors are also allowed to earn money from mutual fund companies for steering clients to specific funds, even if those funds are not in the client’s best interest.

Such conflicted advice costs retirement savers $17 billion a year in poor investment performance and unnecessary fees, according to a White House estimate. Financial research firm Morningstar puts the cost to retirement savers slightly higher, at $19 billion.

The finance industry has continually argued that the fiduciary rule would restrict access to information from advisors and raise costs for customers. But it's important to remember that the only advice the rule would restrict is potentially conflicted advice. In addition, the advisor of a commission account has an incentive to push the client to buy and sell often, which often drives up the cost for the saver -- the fiduciary rule would restrict advisors from telling clients to buy just to generate commissions.

So why is Dave Ramsey, who preaches a financial code based on cost-cutting and ethical behavior, standing up for a business model that costs Americans billions of dollars a year? 

It might be because he makes money steering his listeners and readers to a network of financial advisors, called endorsed local providers, who can work on commission, said Helaine Olen, a personal finance author who writes an advice column for Slate.

“Ramsey’s entire business model is that he claims you can get 12 percent returns in the market, and he has a network of endorsed local providers who pay him for referrals,” Olen told The Huffington Post. 

Since Ramsey doesn’t disclose his company’s financial details, it’s hard to know exactly how much money is at stake for him, but Olen thinks the fiduciary rule might take a toll on Ramsey's referral business, and it certainly will not be good for endorsed providers who work on commission. 

Ramsey's office did not respond to requests for comment.

While Olen notes that “not everyone who works on commission is doing something with bad intent,” the current system has created a "standard where everybody is on their own and people have to figure out if they are getting advice that is in their best interest. And that’s sort of absurd, right?”

In the past, Ramsey has used his syndicated advice column to tell followers to quit jobs that require them to sell financial products they don’t believe in. A reader once asked if she should keep a part-time job that required her to push credit cards on customers. (Ramsey abhors debt and the questioner shared that view.) 

Ramsey’s advice: Quit, “for the sake of your own integrity.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said Ramsey's radio show airs weekly. It airs five days a week.

What Bill Gates Got Wrong About Green Energy

Bill Gates on Tuesday called for "new inventions" in energy storage to make generating power from solar and wind more economical.

In a blog post accompanying his annual letter, the Microsoft founder said storing energy in lithium-ion batteries for use when the sun has set or the air is still costs triple the average kilowatt-hour of electricity in the United States.

"This is why we need new inventions that improve our ability to store energy cheaply and efficiently," Gates wrote. "Getting them will make it even easier for solar and wind to be a big part of our zero-carbon future." 

He explained:

This figure is based on the capital cost of a lithium-ion battery amortized over the useful life of the battery. For example, a battery that costs $150 per kilowatt-hour of capacity with a life cycle of 500 charges would, over its lifetime, cost $150 / 500, or $0.30 per kilowatt-hour.

So if a consumer tried to store enough electricity in this lithium-ion battery to run her house, she would be paying at least $0.30 per kilowatt-hour for the battery.

According to the EIA, the average price of electricity for consumers in the United States is around $0.10 per kilowatt-hour. The European Union, where prices average 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, and India, where they range from 2 to 15 cents, would see similarly dramatic increases.

The problem is twofold. The way electricity is priced in the United States provides poor incentives for storing excess solar and wind energy, and batteries are expensive. 

Electricity is more expensive during the day, when solar panels generate energy, and cheaper at night. Utility companies will buy consumers' excess solar generated during peak hours and recirculate it into the power grid, then sell it back at a cheaper night rate, when solar panels aren’t producing energy.

Therefore, there's little incentive for people to use solar-storage batteries that hang onto energy during the day if they could be selling it at peak prices to the utility companies and buying it back later on the cheap.

That remains a problem in most states.

But Gates is wrong to harp on the high costs of energy storage technology, according to Matt Roberts, executive director of the trade group Energy Storage Association.

"There's sort of this perception that costs need to come down for something to happen," Roberts told The Huffington Post by phone on Tuesday. "This cost focus is a bit of a red herring. What we need to see out there is more value focus."

For businesses, the long-term benefits are clear. The historic climate accord reached in Paris last year provides a framework for building a low-carbon economy, and it signals to companies that renewable energy will be a smart investment right now, even if the tangible benefits won't show for another few years. 

The costs of storing energy are likely to decrease by 50 percent in the next five years, according to Roberts. That makes sense. Electric automaker Tesla, which released two storage batteries last year, is building a $5 billion manufacturing plant in Nevada called the Gigafactory, which at its peak is projected to produce more lithium-ion batteries in a day than were produced in the entire world in 2013. 

Roberts said Gates would better serve the renewable energy movement by highlighting the positive outlook for energy storage instead of noting obstacles that are already in decline. 

"Those costs are still coming down," he said. "But the big thing that unlocks this is value." 

New LEGO Set Features Stay-At-Home Dad And Working Mom

An exciting new offering from LEGO marks a step toward inclusivity for different kinds of families. 

According to Fortune, the toy company recently unveiled a stay-at-home dad minifigure as part of a much-celebrated new set that also includes a young man in a wheelchair.

Daniel Karmann/Getty Images

New LEGO minifigures, including a stay-at-home dad, working mom, baby in a stroller and young man in a wheelchair.

The the stay-at-home dad is part of the Lego City line, along with his baby in a stroller and working mom wife ("depicted in a work outfit," according to Fortune). The brand told the magazine that the minifigures "mirror the world we live in today."

For some, this welcome addition has been a long time coming. In March 2015, Elissa Strauss wrote an op-ed for The Week titled, "Boys need a stay-at-home dad LEGO figurine."

"By playing with these LEGO sets, boys would not only get used to seeing men playing a larger role in domestic life, but come to think of it as fun too," Strauss wrote. 

With Pew reports indicating significant growth in the number of men who identify as stay-at-home dads, it's clear the need/urge for this inclusion will only grow.

"We need to stay in tune with the world around us," President of LEGO Systems Soren Torp Laursen told Fortune. "We aren’t responding to demand from anyone. We are trying to portray the world around us and listen to our consumer base."

While the brand has faced criticism in the past for promoting harmful gender stereotypes, LEGO has made strides in recent years with inclusive additions like female scientist minifigures.

Here's hoping this stay-at-home dad development is an indication of greater representation of diverse families to come.