Fiji to Issue 100% Clean Energy Climate Change Bond

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Fiji hopes to raise $US 50 million by selling sovereign climate bonds, to fund its transition to 100% renewable energy.

Fiji has announced it will issue a sovereign green bond of US$50 million to raise funds for the Pacific nation to tackle climate change.

Fiji hopes to raise US$50 million (A$62 million) by selling a batch of “green” bonds to investors to help tackle the environmental threats it faces from climate change.

They will finance projects to help achieve 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030, in line with Fiji’s adherence to the Paris climate change agreement.

Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama said his nation lived on the front lines of climate change.

“The rising seas, changing weather patterns and severe weather events are threatening our development, our security and the Fijian way of life, along with the very existence of some of our low-lying neighbours,” Mr Bainimarama said.

“We are also sending a clear signal to other nations that we can be creative and innovative in mobilising funds and create win-win outcomes for countries and investors in adapting to the serious effects of climate change,” he said.

The announcement comes as Fiji prepares to chair the 23rd Climate Change Conference in Germany in early November.

Five year bonds will return a four per cent interest rate, and 13 year bonds have an interest rate of 6.3 per cent.

Read more:

No doubt virtue signalling politicians across the world will leap to purchase Fiji’s climate bonds with your money.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Moderately Cross of East Anglia
October 18, 2017 2:33 am

Someone please start an investment fund in unclean energy. Oh wait, Germany….

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
October 18, 2017 4:20 am

Germany with 35% renewable electricity and an intention to close its coal plants

Old England
Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 5:26 am

Graff – I think you mean Germany’s intention to close its Nuclear plants and build more coal plants.

Its ‘35%’ renewable energy is currently in crisis, and only exceptionally rarely does it get anywhere near that level …… Coal fired electricity from Poland keeps their lights on.

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 5:46 am

Griff: Here’s a wonderful investment opportunity for you. 6.3% over 13 years! What are you waiting for? Renewables are actually cheaper that fossil fuels now. Haven’t you heard? It’s a can’t miss situation. Just look at Ontario with it’s massive switch to renewables! Ask any happy ratepayer whose about to get a reduction in his electricity bills as a result of renewables economics 101. Deals like this don’t come along every day. Don’t wait! Invest now!!!

Ric Haldane
Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 6:07 am

Griff, you may want to take a peek at today.

Ric Haldane
Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 6:11 am

Sorry Griff, that should be

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 6:59 am

No, Old… Germany has built its last ever coal plant. No more in the pipeline

(Note: the Dateln plant mentioned has been 75% finished for some years and keeps getting final approval and delay: for purposes of this comment, it is built!)

And yes, it will close its nuclear plants in 2022. Down to 8 now – half of which were offline with no ill effect for a while earlier this year

and no, it doesn’t import electricity from Poland or France to keep its lights on.

It exports more to France than it receives… and recently with French nuclear offline due to safety issues, it kept France’s lights on

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 7:28 am

Try, the lady is Australian 🙂

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 7:56 am

In little Griff’s world, if you can turn off the nuclear plants in a time of low demand, it’s proof that you don’t need nuclear plants ever.
It’s not like Griff ever actually thinks about the positions he takes.

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Germany has built its last ever coal plant. No more in the pipeline“.
Germany had a diabolical problem. They had cut themselves off from nuclear energy. They had an energy shortfall that renewables couldn’t possibly fill. Their only viable option was coal, but this was totally incompatible with all their high-profile virtue signalling. What could they possibly do? Well, they found the answer. They quickly built as many new coal-fired power stations as they needed – 100GW or so. The last of these new coal-fired power stations, Datteln 4, was commissioned this year. So, with their power secure for a while, they could go to an election claiming that the last coal fired power station had been built and they would never build any more. From the election result, it looks like the German people weren’t quite as fooled this time as they were in the past.

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 3:14 pm

Hi Griff,

This chart shows the production by source of electricity in Germany for the current week:
what you’ll notice right away is that dark grey ‘conventional’ area of the plot compared to solar and wind; do unreliables contribute 35% of the total? At times possibly, but certainly never during the peak demand period when everyone gets home from work.
Notice also that the only time electricity production ever exceeds load is during the wee hours of some mornings when demand is low. Depending on how you spin statistics that could be touted as Germany being a net exporter of electricity, but what economic sense there is in ‘exporting’ electricity at times when you must pay your neighbours to accept that excess electricity is somewhat dubious.
This chart:
shows electricty import and export between Germany and its neighbours. Hovering over the blue ribbon from ‘FR’ will display the import/export between Germany and France, the figures being 12.1 TWhr from France to Germany and 1.4TWhr from Germany to France. Admittedly the most recent year available is 2015, but checking a 5 year plot of French electricity production here:
indicates that there is little to distinguish 2017 from 2015, despite claims that French Nuclear (which accounts for slightly over 72% of France’s electricity generation) is offline for safety issues.

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 4:34 pm

If Griff doesn’t buy into those issues, we’ll know he’s a hypocrite.

Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
October 18, 2017 7:32 am

Griff it’s a 2016 report THAT IS before the election … it means nothing.

Australia had lots of policies which suddenly disappeared after the election.
More up todate verified report please.

We don’t believe that rubbish.

Joel Snider
Reply to  LdB
October 18, 2017 12:08 pm

Yes. But remember, all he does is forward press releases from advocates of those policies.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Joel Snider
October 18, 2017 3:00 pm

Propaganda from Griffies handlers.

October 18, 2017 2:44 am

Why would anyone consider investing in Fiji when, if the alarmists are to be believed, it”s in imminent danger of sinking into the sea?

It doesn’t seem like a good deal for the alarmist investors it’s presumably targeted at. On the other hand, if the claims of sea level rise and climatic disaster aren’t quite what they are made out to be, this could be a very good deal.

Do we think someone, somewhere is telling porkie pies and making out like a bandit?

ManBearPig anyone?

Reply to  HotScot
October 18, 2017 10:26 am

What is the rating for these bonds? AAA or Junk? How is the Fijian government proposing to pay back the bonds? General revenue or income from the proposed energy generation?

I suspect the free market will indicate the viability of this endeavor.

Gerry, England
Reply to  rocketscientist
October 18, 2017 3:50 pm

Are they liquid or illiquid? Risky buying something you can’t sell when you need to.

Dave Fair
Reply to  HotScot
October 18, 2017 10:50 am

Hell, the scheme might work: Benign climate (extremely low heating and cooling loads), no industry, the costly need to ship in fossil fuels, etc. And the welfare state will pay for the whole thing!

What could possibly go wrong?

Steve Borodin
October 18, 2017 2:51 am

A very sound investment. I suggest Gore buys the lot

Reply to  Steve Borodin
October 18, 2017 4:33 am

Gore didn’t make his millions by buying investments. He made them by selling investments. link You can’t believe anything he says about the climate because he has a vested interest in alarmism so he can sell his so called ‘green’ investments.

Gary Wescom
Reply to  Steve Borodin
October 18, 2017 7:52 am

Of course! And they can build upon Puerto Rico’s successes. Here is a recent video on the subject:


October 18, 2017 2:59 am

It would be interesting to see the detailed plans of exactly how they are going to go 100% renewable. A bit of due diligence would be needed before investing. Back to sailing ships and gliders no doubt.

October 18, 2017 3:00 am

This makes lots of sense for the Fiji islands. They need energy to raise living standards but largely rely upon imported diesel (apart from hydro). They have no fossil fuel sources. What they do have is (a) abundant sunshine; (b) cheap labour to instal panels; and (c) a good deal of undeveloped land spread across hundreds of islands.

Why not market their energy development plan as a selfless effort to save the planet? Somebody has to spend the annual $100 billion flowing from the Paris Agreement.

Denarau Island is currently hosting the lead-in conference for COP23, which will deliver the most lucrative tourism boom in the country’s history. Just one more reason to be grateful for the UN’s struggle against climate change.

Oh… and then there’s those sneaky (i.e. undetectable) rising seas!

Reply to  barrybrill
October 18, 2017 4:42 am

Energy Independence makes perfect sense and would be a massive vote winner, but our beloved greenies go and spoil it by pretending that little old Fiji can change the global climate, bless their deluded, emotion-fueled cotton socks.

But now step forward real greenies, do you want your island covered in solar panels, wind farms and battery warehouses? And here comes the economists: do you want your great-grandchildren to be still paying off the debt, to those already rich money funds, in 100 years time?

Reply to  barrybrill
October 18, 2017 5:20 am

@barrybrill I’m not clear if you meant that as sarcasm, since most rational people know that you can’t rely 100% on wind/solar. And islands are particularly at risk if they do that. Take a look at Necker Island or Porto Rico after major weather. When the going gets tough the fossil fuels get going while the clean energy gets rebuilt. Island clean energy requires 100% backup fossil fuel generated power. It also takes up space, trees get cut down, kills birds and bats. Power generators can be clean burning low NOx type leaving low exhaust emissions. Oil will be available (and cheap) for many decades. So this is simply a call to virtue seekers. It will probably work (market is stupid) but it wont be smart. If you did a risk assessment for this type of energy on an island, it would be demonstrated to represent high consequence (loss of power to large population leading to fatalities, injuries, disease, slow recovery) after a low frequency storm event (every 10 years or so). If they are really successful they can do both and get the whole thing paid by climate change virtue signallers, but it will be a waste. Better to build reliable generators with similar backup power (but 100% backup not required). Engines consume air with fuel of choice. Air will always be available. But nobody would give them money to do that so they are going fishing for what the market will accept. Sadly, this is the result. My prediction: 1. they get their money; 2. they build as proposed; 3. they also build 100 backup since it would be insane not to; 4. they get hit by a huge storm within 10 years that wipes out most of their wind/solar; 5. they take the insurance money and improve on their system reliability by drastically reducing their wind/solar and increasing from other more reliable sources (maybe by then nuclear will be possible, but good old fossil fuel generation would be fine as well).

Reply to  DoctorK
October 18, 2017 7:02 am

doctorK – a properly built solar system survives a hurricane and is very useful after:

Oil imports are expensive for smaller countries and solar PV saves an enormous amount over the diesel which would have been burned…

Reply to  DoctorK
October 18, 2017 7:33 am

You have seen photos of plenty that didn’t.

So how about facts Griff, how many survived vs how many died.

Roger Graves
Reply to  DoctorK
October 18, 2017 7:45 am

To get some idea what a hurricane can do to solar power arrays, see:

BTW, the IEEE is, or used to be, gung-ho for renewable energy. The mere fact that they would publish something even mildly critical of renewable energy indicates a massive policy shift for them.

Reply to  DoctorK
October 18, 2017 7:58 am

Translation: Anything that fails is just proof that they weren’t properly built.
Sort of like communism will always work so long as it has the right people running it. All the failures to date are just evidence that they didn’t have the right people in charge.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  DoctorK
October 18, 2017 8:59 am

Even if the solar panels survive, does it matter if your transmission system is fubar? If you are just talking a personal system…buried gas tank has a much better survival rate.

Reply to  DoctorK
October 18, 2017 9:22 am

Doesn’t have to be buried, just bermed so that it doesn’t take the full force of the wind.

Reply to  DoctorK
October 18, 2017 11:17 am

I would surely love to see how well these hurricane proofed solar panels survived the actual event. Enough about promises. Show me the pudding!
…the Titanic was vaunted as unsinkable….

DC Cowboy
Reply to  barrybrill
October 18, 2017 6:16 am

It does for an Island nation that has to import ALL of its energy (in the form of fossil fuels) and that has abundant sunshine. It wouldn’t take a whole lot of supply disruption to collapse the economy.

It will be an interesting ‘case study’ to follow to see if they can accomplish their goal. I’m curious if they could also be a ‘case study’ for harnessing currents between the islands to generate electricity. Not sure if that is economically/physically feasible tho.

Reply to  DC Cowboy
October 18, 2017 7:26 pm

Everything has its place and Fiji (not Germany) is the place for PV solar supply. I quite agree that Fiji will be an interesting case study and the UN S-G is already saying that the Fiji plan will “inspire others”. He estimates that ‘green bonds’ will exceed $1 trillion by 2010.

The nearby Tokelau Islands are 100% powered by renewables courtesy of New Zealand, with PV solar backed up by biofuel coconut shells. Admittedly these three islands are handkerchief-sized, but they are also subject to frequent cyclones. aid.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  barrybrill
October 18, 2017 6:56 am

I have to say that Barry has a point. There are political and economic reasons that Fiji would want to reduce their dependence on energy imports. I seriously question whether they will get anywhere near the 100% they are talking about, but it could just be marketing spin.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, Doc.

October 18, 2017 3:09 am

South Pacific nations are notoriously mendicant.
Fiji is a nice place to have a holiday, but I wouldn’t be buying their bonds even on a bad brain day.

October 18, 2017 3:15 am

The problem is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scietific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. Their efforts will have no effect on global climate.

William Astley
Reply to  willhaas
October 18, 2017 4:00 am

Ditto. There are periods of millions of years in the paleo record when temperature does not even correlate with temperature.

The scam is over when there is cooling.

CAGW and AGW will be shown to have been due to confirmation bias. If you really, really believe something should be true, it is OK to ignore evidence that disproves your beliefs.

Climate sensitivity to temperature is trending down, to zero.

Fiji should wait out the scam.

Some facts about Fiji.

population without electricity: 375,274
electrification – total population: 59%
electrification – urban areas: 72%
electrification – rural areas: 45% (2012)

Population: 920,938 (July 2017 est.)

Electricity – installed generating capacity:
300,000 kW (2014 est.)
country comparison to the world: 158
Electricity – from fossil fuels:
46.3% of total installed capacity (2012 est.)
country comparison to the world: 151
Electricity – from hydroelectric plants:
48.3% of total installed capacity (2012 est.)
country comparison to the world: 52
Electricity – from other renewable sources:
5.4% of total installed capacity (2012 est.)

Dave Fair
Reply to  willhaas
October 18, 2017 10:59 am

willhaas, a “minor” quibble: We have not been experiencing any climate change.

Anytime someone proffers “current climate change,” examples must be demanded.

October 18, 2017 3:27 am

Clean energy bonds – monetary soap bubble. while at it, if anyone has bit-coin account try to cash it in before this ‘monetary bubble’ is burst. Current ‘value’ US$ 5,750.

Reply to  vukcevic
October 18, 2017 3:34 am

Another South Sea Bubble?

October 18, 2017 3:39 am

Fiji is just like Cole Porter:

I love Paris in the springtime
I love Paris in the fall
Why Oh why do I love Paris?

Money, money, money.

October 18, 2017 4:20 am

The amount they want to raise — $50 million — is chump-change for “green” millionaires and billionaires like Bloomberg, Branson, Steyn, Soros, and Gore. Fiji should focus their pitch on them. If I recall right, Gore and Branson have already demonstrated a willingness to purchase property at “risk” from climate change.

October 18, 2017 4:22 am

“About $81 billion of green bonds were issued altogether last year, according to the Climate Bonds Initiative. This not-for-profit organization expects that $150 billion of green bonds will be issued this year, compared with just $3 billion in 2012.”

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 5:42 am

Thanks for identifying one if the names modern organized crime operates under.

Reply to  hunter
October 18, 2017 7:04 am


150 billion dollars of investment worldwide… by some highly reputable money managers.

And according to you its all crime?

The reality is, renewables are big business, BAU, here to stay, growing.

Reply to  hunter
October 18, 2017 7:37 am

It’s a derivate Griff people gamble on anything. They come under the heading JUNK bonds.

You can issue them for almost anything. What it tells you is a lot of people are gambling around on green energy not much more.

Reply to  hunter
October 18, 2017 7:59 am

Grant farming, not investing.

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 7:03 am

I take it you read the article…sounds good Griff…especially the “bottom Line” given by the author

“In the end, whether you choose to be kind to the environment by earmarking some of your savings for green bonds comes down to your own comfort level with low yields and lofty expenses”

Stick to trolling, I was never enamored with investment advice coming from someone sounding off from their parents basement.

Reply to  SteveS
October 18, 2017 7:40 am

They also left out the risk. Like the Fijian bonds you are banking on the Fijian government being able to pay which in no way is risk free. Anyone know what the Fijian credit rating is?

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 1:01 pm

You seen the PDS on these ‘investments’ Griff? No history of returns, fees to the hilt and being an astute investor who practices trading, these bonds are simply a gamble. The renewable industry has poor ROA and terrible ROE, I would go as far to say, ROE would be non-existent and any speculator who gambles in this market deserves to lose the lot.

October 18, 2017 4:27 am

All renewables for Figi? Check on the island of El Hierro to see how that works out.

October 18, 2017 4:37 am

‘They will finance projects to help achieve 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030’

Ships with their food, planes with their tourists . . . all gone by 2030?

October 18, 2017 4:39 am

You’d think these people would be more careful about buying into “rising sea levels” I mean, they are on the ocean – certainly they can tell whether the seas are rising. $50 million isn’t very much, but then, Fiji only has a population of 890,000. Fiji uses a lot of hydro power (120 MW capacity) and the rest is 112 MW of diesel powered electrical generation. Diesel is probably about as expensive as you can get – this is a situation many island nations face – importation of coal, LPG, diesel,, meaning they typically have high electrical rates (Hawaii the highest in the nation – 38 cents per kWhr) and are places where solar looks OK, economically speaking. Power generation for the year 2016 in Fiji was 923,000 MWhrs, 46% from diesel and 54% from (mostly) hydro. To go all renewable, they only need to generate 425,000 MWhrs of solar power per year.
So how much power would $50 million worth of solar farms get you? Current data suggests all-in costs of $2.4 million per MW, requiring 5 acres. A MW nameplate capacity of solar panels amounts to an actual capacity of 1/5th to 1/4th, depending upon irradiance (number of “suns” per day) of the location.
So $50 million will allow installation of approximately 20MW nameplate capacity solar, or between
96 to 120 MWhrs actual MWhr output, average per day. That’s between 35,000 and 44,000 MWhrs per year, a long way from the 424,000 MWhrs required. Sounds like they are going to have to build at least 10 of these 20MW solar farms. Of course, they also need some means of distributing the solar over more than the 4 or 5 hours when the panels are generating appreciable power. With so much hydro capacity, the possibility of using the lakes behind the dams as pumped storage reservoirs probably exists.
Fiji seems to require very little power per person – 1 MWhr per year, which is 1,000 kwHrs, or about 3 kWhrs per day per person. A typical U.S. house probably averages over 35 kWhrs per day.
Fortunately Fiji has lots of hydro, which is one of the few renewables (geothermal the other) that can actually provide (more or less) reliable and also peak power generation, as long as the dams have enough water.

Reply to  arthur4563
October 18, 2017 6:53 am

I bet lots of fijian actually make their own electricity by whatever means is more economical to them, because it makes little sense to grid-connect them . That may include solar panels, wind turbine, or diesel generator, and probably do not appear in statistics. Hence the enormous proportion of people officially without electricity.

Reply to  paqyfelyc
October 18, 2017 8:01 am

If a solar-and-hydro-based grid can’t work in Fiji, it won’t work anywhere.

Reply to  paqyfelyc
October 18, 2017 9:24 am

Solar, hydro, diesel.
You will still need the diesel when the hydro runs low.
The question is, does solar produce enough power to justify having three power sources where 2 are sufficient now?

Reply to  paqyfelyc
October 18, 2017 9:26 am

You will still need enough diesel to power the entire island for those instances when the sun isn’t shining and hydro is running low. Pretty much the same number of diesel generators as they have now.

Dave Fair
Reply to  arthur4563
October 18, 2017 11:06 am

Wadda joke; a huge percentage of the population doesn’t even have electric power.

October 18, 2017 4:44 am

Followed by the hum of 101 generators running to keep the lights on when renewable turns out to be unreliable .
Still if they can lay their hands on easy ‘climate guilt cash ‘ why not ?

October 18, 2017 4:52 am

50 years from now scientists will discover that CO2 greens the planet and politicians will clamour for development of CO2-releasing technologies.

October 18, 2017 5:40 am

So many scams and deceptions in one brief financial disclosure.
The only impact on “human caused climate change” the bonds will produce will be the cooling effect of the air conditioned SUVs and air conditioned homes and offices of the royal family and their pals Will buy with the money.

Bloke down the pub
October 18, 2017 6:09 am

‘Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama said his nation lived on the front lines of climate change.’
There’s no doubt as to who wins in the battle between renewables and climate, changed or otherwise.

October 18, 2017 6:19 am

It’s back to grass huts for Fiji.

October 18, 2017 6:25 am

50 M$ ? when they have ( William Astley October 18, 2017 at 4:00 am ) 375 000 people without electricity at all? That 133 $ for each of them… What electricity can you buy for a so ridiculous amount ? A 100 or 200 W solar panel, maybe.
50 M$ ? when the per capita GDP is ~9000$, and the state budget ~1.5 billion ?
That surely enough toward sustainable lining pockets of politicians and vested interest, but not to make a step toward “clean energy” (for whatever that means…)

Reply to  paqyfelyc
October 18, 2017 7:43 am

That was actually what I was wondering is this actually dangerous for the poor Fiji people.

Soren R Nielsen
October 18, 2017 6:30 am

Fiji (Suva) shows, according to NOAA, an abnormal “sea rise” (6.3mm/y).
The surrounding regions( Eg. Brisbane or Auckland, shows a more normal rate, around or less than 1mm/y

The vertical land movement of Fiji (land sink), should be examined closer.
This could explain the “local feeling” of the sea rising fast.
-Does anybody know the land-sink-rate for Fiji Islands?


Warren Blair
Reply to  Soren R Nielsen
October 18, 2017 10:37 pm

Soren there is NO sea-level rise around Fiji.
Geoscience Australia maintains a CGPS network in the Pacific used to adjusts the Australian Bureau’s tide-gauge data from Lautoka and Suva.
AU Bureau sea level data is derived from highly precise instruments and adjusted for crustal movement.
Can’t say the same for their recent-year temperature data which is a fraud.
Data available at this link:

Michael Jankowski
October 18, 2017 6:45 am

Fiji will really make a dent in those global CO2 emissions.

October 18, 2017 7:07 am

solar PV will really make a dent in Fijian balance of trade

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 8:01 am

Yup, buying those panels will definitely impact their balance of trade.

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 1:08 pm

Griff, are you really the clueless about finance and economics? Please explain how purchasing pv solar panels going to assist the country? Please demonstrate in dollar terms, how Fiji benefits in this trade deal with the country where panels come from?

Reply to  Craig
October 20, 2017 4:26 pm

“Griff, are you really the clueless about finance and economics?”

Griff is totally clueless about just about everything.

And patronising with it.

Reply to  Griff
October 18, 2017 4:08 pm

Where do you think the PVs would they be located? There are no empty tracts of desert. All the flat land is used for agriculture.

October 18, 2017 7:32 am

Fiji | Credit Rating

Standard & Poor’s credit rating for Fiji stands at B+ with stable outlook. Moody’s credit rating for Fiji was last set at Ba3 with stable outlook. In general, a credit rating is used by sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and other investors to gauge the credit worthiness of Fiji thus having a big impact on the country’s borrowing costs. This page includes the government debt credit rating for Fiji as reported by major credit rating agencies.

What is ‘Ba3/BB-‘
Ba3/BB- is a bond rate, which is generally considered speculative in nature and not considered to be investment-grade bonds suited for people wishing to avoid the risk of losing their principal. These bonds are commonly referred to as junk bonds, though this rating indicates that they are towards the more stable end of the junk-bond rating spectrum.

Ba3 is a long-term bond rating provided by the Moody’s rating service, while BB- is the parallel rating provided by both the S&P and Fitch rating services.

Ba2/BB is the rating that falls directly above Ba3/BB-, while B1/B+ falls directly below.


Read more: Ba3/BB-
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Fiji has a slightly better credit rating than Tesla…
comment image

Junk bonds.

Reply to  David Middleton
October 18, 2017 7:45 am

Thanks for that I had not read down .. yeah as I thought Junk Bond. Griff fails to understand how all this works, he always sees everything positive it involves the word renewables. So basically Fiji government went on an advertising frenzy to push a junk bond and Griff is buying it.

Reply to  David Middleton
October 18, 2017 8:02 am

I wonder what impact another $50B in bonds will have on that rating?

Reply to  David Middleton
October 18, 2017 11:27 am

Thanks, I had suspected as much.

Junk bonds for junk science.

Sadly the Fijian tax payer is the one stuck with the bill.

October 18, 2017 7:34 am

Admittedly I am totally naive on financial matters , but I cannot see how this scheme will succeed given the negative balance of payments for Fiji , and the gap between exports and imports approaching minus 2billion USD annually :
Where does the money come from to pay the bondholders? ( a question one might also ask of the UK Govt to be fair to the Fijians )
The history of ethnic dissension between the indigenous Fijians and the descendants of Indian labourers introduced by the British also makes this a somewhat risky investment I would have thought , but perhaps that potential confiict has now been resolved and in any case is, I suppose, not relevant to a discussion based on engineering and finance.

Reply to  mikewaite
October 18, 2017 7:46 am

It’s a junk bond it doesn’t have to succeed, it exists only for people to gamble on.

Reply to  mikewaite
October 18, 2017 8:38 am

Where does the money come from to pay the bondholders?

Ask not for whom the bell tolls …

Reply to  climanrecon
October 18, 2017 9:27 am

If they are like most other countries, they will just print the amount needed.

Reply to  climanrecon
October 18, 2017 11:52 am

Correct as does any country, if it is too much it devalues there currency.
>>> Government bonds are usually denominated in the country’s own currency <<<

Do you see what happens, if they have to print too much money there currency devalues. So you make your nominated percentage but the currency drops so you don't get back the same value you bought it with … AKA you loose money. The country inhabitants also get hurt in the process.

Dave Fair
Reply to  LdB
October 18, 2017 2:59 pm

Crap! LdB actually injects informed reason into the debate.

October 18, 2017 7:45 am

Fiji is a dictatorship by the post British folks that were brought into the country from the Indian subcontinent for agricultural production. The British left and the Indian peoples stayed and developed on the British mercantile system that the indigenous peoples were not interested in. The government is likely doing this to “green” skim a goodly percent of the money and virtual signal to the world.

Most rural Fijians use cooking gas and get evening light with kerosene lanterns. Gasoline is the primary fuel for marine transport to outlying islands for personal travel and diesel for the ferries.

Previous posts refer to the inevitable reset to “green” infrastructure due to hurricane destruction. Major hurricanes being on average, twice a lifetime based on conversations I had with older Fijians. Winds are seasonal. Solar is already in use for cellular tower systems that work really well. “Your book is in at the Brisbane library” text to daughter while we were on holiday there, proved that this system works from a Australian cell company that serves in Fiji.

Wind power will get blown to smithereens. Solar would use too much land in a country that needs all it can get for food production. Base oil fired power will always be there and they could build coal…

I repeat
Its a green signalling scam that no one should buy into.

Dave in Canmore
October 18, 2017 7:46 am

““The rising seas,…”
Here is the actual data from Fiji. Declining sea levels for the last 10 years. Is it me or does it seem that officials fib more than they used to AND seem to have fewer consequences for those fibs?

Soren R Nielsen
Reply to  Dave in Canmore
October 18, 2017 10:03 am

Dave in C, where did you find that interesting graph? Please link.

Reply to  Soren R Nielsen
October 18, 2017 2:39 pm
Note the following. (Especially the bit about land subsidence)
“For Information: A gauge was maintained on behalf of the TOGA Sea Level Center until it was withdrawn in May 1989. A gauge at Kings Wharf was destroyed in November 1983 and was re-located to Walu Bay Naval Facility (operated by University of Hawaii)There was a 3 month overlap between the new NOAA gauge and the Walu gauge.
From November 1997 the responsibility for the station in Suva was taken over by the Australian National Tidal Facility from the US NOAA. Comparison of daily means for Suva with those for Lautoka and satellite altimetry suggest there could be land subsidence at the Suva station equating to a slow positive sea level trend.”
In 1983 when the gauge was broken, Suva’ Kings Wharf was being renovated under the (first) Port of Suva Rehabilitation Project (there have been others since) which was financed by ADB. According to ADB “Before the project, Suva port’s deck was extremely corroded, riddled with concrete cancer, lighting was poor, and the deck’s ability to withstand heavy cargo loads was also in doubt.” The 1983 project involved extensive repairs to the reinforced concrete deck which effectively increased its thickness, full length access bridges from the landside to the quay. The steel landside seawall was faced with concrete to stop it from rusting and many metres of rock fill were placed against it forming a berm to keep it stable. The slope of the berm extended almost the full width of the quay.
So ‘yes’, there could be a subsidence issue there.

Dave Fair
Reply to  JCalvertN(UK)
October 18, 2017 3:05 pm

Shit! Facts trump speculation again.

Bruce Cobb
October 18, 2017 8:07 am

“Green Bonds” – are they anything like Green Stamps, and if so, how many does it take to fill a book, and how many books to buy a solar panel?

michael hart
October 18, 2017 8:11 am

Looks like the Prime Minister fancies a new Mercedes, and he knows a way he might get it.

Reply to  michael hart
October 18, 2017 2:49 pm

Government supply Mercedes, of course.

[Mind, my brother has a very recent Mercedes – probably needs a recall for air-bag issues – but it certainly is a nice car.
Lots of fancy bits like parking sensors and a self-closing boot!
Doesn’t carry as much wine from France as my Zafira, though!]

October 18, 2017 8:28 am

Might be a deal if the Fijians spend the money to build an arc. They can use it as a tourist hotel until they need it to escape the next great flood. It hedges the bet. Everyone wins.

michael hart
October 18, 2017 8:31 am

As recently as 1992, wiki cites the Monasavu Dam/Wailoa Hydro Power Station as supplying 92% of the main island’s power.

Given the geography and climate, I suspect they could get a lot more hydro-power if they really wanted to. But it’s just not fashionable in many places like California these days, so I guess Fiji just has to do the same thing.

Michael Jankowski
October 18, 2017 9:04 am

Why doesn’t Fiji just ban tourism to save the world? Make all of those overseas airline travel emissions go away.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
October 18, 2017 9:28 am

Closing all those hotels would also reduce the islands power demand.

Rhoda R
Reply to  MarkW
October 19, 2017 12:27 am

And probably lower the rate of subsidence.

michael hart
October 18, 2017 9:22 am

Given that this whole Fijian story is really just about bilking the global warming scam, a sign of how foolish the global warmistas are:
It’s only slightly O/T, but the third largest island in Fiji, Taveuni, has a wiki page containing the statement

A 2011 study identified coastal erosion, flooding and water availability and supply as the most significant impacts of climate change on some of the villages on Taveuni.

But this was preceded by the statement

Near Mount Koroturanga, 9,970 mm of mean, annual rainfall has been recorded.

So, a place that already receives a most ungodly amount of rain is going to suffer from either unusual flooding, or a shortage of water? lol. If a millionaire sees his income reduced, or increased, by a few thousand per year, what is he going to do?
These people are idiots.

October 18, 2017 12:57 pm

21st Century Cargo Cult.

October 18, 2017 3:11 pm

Beats me why government bonds are usually considered a safe investment. They should ALL have junk rating as governments can devalue currencies and if you eventually want your money back, or the agreed interest, they are just as likely to stick an AK up your nose and tell you to eff off.

October 18, 2017 6:09 pm

I would stay away from those bonds.

October 18, 2017 7:11 pm

The Fijian papers are breathlessly reporting the speeches at the pre-COP23 conference:

The ILO’s Maria Menendez called for research into the effects of climate on future employment. The Conference decided to establish an ongoing “Job Creation Committee” at the Bonn conference.

Bonn will also adopt a “Gender Action Plan” – which was discussed at a women-only breakfast this morning. The Australian Government has undertaken to meet the costs of women delegates to Bonn from 14 island countries.

The UN deputy-secretary hailed a DiCaprio tweet: “To address the climate crisis we must address inequality.” This concept underlies most of the rhetoric here.

The UN climate world is a progressive nirvana. What next? Committees to address transgender bathrooms and campus micro-aggressions?

Reply to  barrybrill
October 19, 2017 3:55 am

Free holidays for those that love in take part in meetings , from their point to view what is not to like ?

Dave Fair
Reply to  barrybrill
October 19, 2017 12:31 pm

The “Gender Action Plan” must include birthing more girl babies?

October 18, 2017 9:02 pm

If Fiji can get their bonds sold at a lower interest rate because the market them as “green” then that is a boon to them. Some people will pay good money to feel better about themselves. (I do wonder why they feel so bad about themselves.)
The problem is when they make the rest of us pay our good money so they can feel good about themselves.
It would be great for Fiji if (very far offshore) wind energy was cheap and they had a method of assuring continuous power. I’m not thinking that this will happen in the life of the bonds, though.

mick muller
October 19, 2017 4:11 am

It doesn’t matter what the terms of the bonds are, the investors are unlikely to get paid.
Fiji’s biggest money spinners are tourism aid, and sugar.
It has been running Trade Deficits for almost its entire existence.
Whats the chances of them defaulting as last happened in 1983??

%d bloggers like this: