I can agree with you that we should be moving off oil as soon and as much as possible, but we will never be completely off oil. Oil has led to the rapid progress of humanity, but at a terrible cost for the environment. And like it or not the oil companies will have to play a large part in the shift to renewables.
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.
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
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...
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
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.