Pre-COP Blackout in Fiji: What It Does and Doesn’t Prove

Pre-COP Blackout in Fiji: What It Does and Doesn’t Prove About Renewable Energy

Sometimes the news writes its own punchline. Last week, at an international climate meeting hosted by Australia in Fiji, the power went out.

For critics of Australia’s energy policy, it was almost too perfect: a summit about the future of energy plunged into darkness. For supporters, it was a distraction from the real issue, which is the threat that climate change poses to Pacific communities. A recent commentary by James Macpherson on The Daily Declaration, titled “Welcome to the Renewable Energy Dark Ages,” took the first view and made a short, sharp, humorous argument about reliability.

It’s a fair opportunity to ask a serious question: what does a 30-minute power cut at a conference actually tell us? This post sets out what happened, what the summit cost, what’s known about the cause, what the evidence says about renewables and reliability, and how Christians can think about energy, creation care and honest politics.

What Happened in Fiji

The meeting in question was the Pre-COP31, held in Nadi, Fiji, from 5 to 8 October 2026, ahead of the main United Nations climate conference (COP31), which is scheduled for 9 to 20 November in Antalya, Turkey. Under an arrangement between Australia and Turkey, Australia, led by Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, is leading the negotiations at COP31. A leaders’ event was also planned in Tuvalu, designed to let world leaders see first-hand the climate pressures facing the Pacific.

On Tuesday 6 October, the lights went out at the Sofitel hotel where the Pre-COP was meeting. Reports describe a power cut that took out the lighting and air conditioning. The government’s account says the outage lasted around 10 minutes, while other attendees said it lasted closer to half an hour. Independent MP Zali Steggall was reportedly speaking when it happened.

Steggall later told journalists that a power outage was trivial compared with the problems facing Pacific communities who face the loss of homes, land and culture because of climate impacts they did little to cause. She also said the outage was a reminder that reliable, affordable and resilient power is vital, especially for Pacific island nations that rely on imported fossil fuels.

What Did It Cost?

This is where the numbers need care, because the headline figure of $150 million has been widely repeated, including in the original commentary.

• The $150 million figure appears to refer to the government’s overall budget for Mr Bowen’s COP31 role in 2026, which covers a year-long presidency of the negotiations, run by around 105 full-time-equivalent staff. The Opposition rounds the figure to about $152 million.
• The Pre-COP event itself is a smaller amount. Mr Bowen told reporters that the cost to taxpayers would be around $20 million, to be taken from the government’s $147 million Pacific climate package.
• Mr Bowen defended the spending as “the cost of diplomacy” that improves Australia’s standing in the Pacific at a time of geostrategic competition. He also announced a $7 million grant for renewable energy projects in the Pacific and a new agreement with Vanuatu on solar technical capacity.
• The Tuvalu leaders’ event has struggled to attract high-profile attendees, with only two non-Pacific leaders confirmed at one point. Mr Bowen said he had been hoping for more.

So the more precise statement is that the Pre-COP meeting carried an estimated cost of about $20 million, within a much larger COP31 budget. Whether $20 million is good value is a fair debate, but it’s not the same as $150 million for a single meeting.

What Caused the Blackout?

Here’s the key point, and it’s one where the facts are limited.

The commentary uses the blackout as a symbol of renewable energy’s unreliability. But so far, no public evidence has been presented that the outage was caused by renewable generation. Fiji’s energy officials said the blackout had no connection to the Pre-COP and blamed ordinary weather and grid fluctuations. Fiji’s grid draws on a mix of sources including hydropower and imported diesel, and the country has long struggled with unplanned outages. A Fiji Times report published just a day earlier noted that unplanned outage hours rose from 7,319 hours in 2023 to 8,246 hours in 2024, an increase of about 12.7 per cent.

In other words, the outage tells us that Fiji’s grid, like those of many small island states, is vulnerable. It doesn’t tell us that wind and solar caused it. We don’t yet know the cause, and it would be unwise to draw strong conclusions until there’s a technical explanation.

Renewables and Reliability: What Do We Actually Know?

Beyond one hotel in Nadi, the question of how renewables affect reliability is real and important. Some facts that apply to Australia:

• The grid is changing fast. Coal-fired power stations are ageing and scheduled to close over coming years, while wind, solar and batteries are being added. The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has repeatedly warned about potential reliability gaps if new generation, storage and transmission aren’t delivered on time, and also says the system can remain reliable if they are.
• Solar and wind are variable. They don’t produce power on demand, so grids need storage, backup generation, interconnection or other flexible capacity. That’s a technical challenge, not an unsolvable one, but it requires investment and planning.
• A well-known example. In September 2016, South Australia suffered a statewide blackout after severe storms damaged transmission lines. AEMO’s investigation found that the immediate cause was the storm damage, but that the control settings of some wind farms contributed to the system’s collapse. The finding showed both that extreme weather is the trigger and that the way renewable generators are configured matters.
• Fossil fuels fail too. Coal and gas plants also trip offline, break down and run short of fuel. Grid failures have happened for many reasons around the world.
• Costs are contested. Supporters argue that renewables are now among the cheapest sources of new energy. Critics argue that the full system cost, including transmission lines, storage and backup, is higher than the headline price suggests, and point to rising household bills.

The sensible reading is that reliability is a legitimate concern, and the transition requires careful engineering and honest costing. It’s also true that no energy source is automatically reliable.

The Pacific Context

The summit was held in the Pacific for a reason. Many Pacific island nations face serious pressure from rising seas, stronger storms and coastal erosion, and sea levels in parts of the western Pacific have been rising faster than the global average. Countries such as Tuvalu are among the most exposed in the world.

At the same time, many Pacific nations depend heavily on imported diesel for electricity. That makes power expensive and vulnerable to price shocks and supply disruptions. Renewable energy, especially solar, can reduce that dependence, though it also needs storage and reliable grid management. So one lesson of a Fiji blackout might be the opposite of the one the commentary draws: that small island grids need more resilient, locally produced power, not less.

The Politics: Two Views of the Summit

The summit has been intensely debated in Australia.

Critics argue that:

• The expense is hard to justify while many Australians face cost-of-living pressures and rising power bills.
• Low attendance by world leaders undermines the case for the event.
• Flying delegates to luxury resorts sends the wrong message about climate seriousness.
• The Pre-COP blackout, whatever its cause, illustrates the importance of reliability.

Defenders argue that:

• Hosting the meeting in the Pacific shows solidarity with the communities most exposed to climate impacts.
• Regional diplomacy has strategic value in a period of competition for influence among the Pacific nations.
• Australia’s role in the COP31 negotiations carries responsibilities and costs.
• A short power cut in a Fijian hotel says very little about the national electricity market in Australia.

Many commentators have also joked about photos of the minister appearing to doze at the event. That makes for good headlines, but it says little about the substance.

A Christian Lens

Christians have no single party line on energy policy, but several biblical principles bear on the discussion.

Stewardship of creation. Genesis 2:15 describes humans as placed in the garden to work it and keep it. Psalm 24:1 says the earth is the Lord’s. Caring for the environment, including responding to environmental harm, is a Christian responsibility, even when people differ about how to do so.

Care for the vulnerable. Matthew 25:35–40 and Proverbs 31:8–9 call us to care for the poor and those who can’t speak for themselves. That includes Pacific communities facing coastal loss, and it includes Australian households struggling to pay for electricity. Energy policy has real human costs on both sides.

Honest dealing. Proverbs 11:1 says that dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, but accurate weights please him. That applies to numbers in public debate. A claim about cost or cause should be as accurate as we can make it, whichever side of the argument we’re on.

Counting the cost. In Luke 14:28, Jesus tells a story about someone who plans to build a tower and first sits down to count the cost. Wise policy, like wise personal planning, requires honest accounting of costs, benefits and risks.

Stewardship of public money. Taxpayers’ money is a trust. Christians can reasonably ask whether a particular spend delivers value, and they can also recognise that diplomacy and international engagement are legitimate uses of public funds.

Humility. Proverbs 18:17 reminds us that the first to present a case seems right until the other side comes and examines it. On a complex topic like energy, there’s good reason to hold our views with some humility.

Our Take

Here’s where we’d like to add some commentary.

1. A single outage is a thin basis for a big conclusion.

The incident is a vivid story, but a half-hour power cut in a Fijian hotel, with no confirmed cause, doesn’t demonstrate that renewable energy fails. Treating it as a decisive piece of evidence repeats the mistake we’d object to if it were used against a view we hold.

2. Reliability is a serious question that deserves serious answers.

At the same time, the underlying concern is valid. Electricity must be reliable, affordable and secure, and any transition needs a credible plan for firm capacity, storage and grid stability. Households and industry can’t afford to take that on faith.

3. Get the numbers right.

The difference between $150 million and $20 million is significant. Critics of government spending are on stronger ground when they use accurate figures, and good commentary corrects errors even when they favour its own side.

4. Don’t mock the Pacific’s concerns.

Whatever one thinks of this summit’s cost or style, the people of low-lying Pacific nations aren’t a punchline. Their concerns are real, and so are those of Australian families worried about bills. Honest debate can hold both.

5. Creation care and cost-of-living care belong together.

A Christian approach to energy should ask how to protect God’s creation and also how to protect the family budgets and jobs that depend on affordable power. Treating those as enemies leads to bad policy and bad witness.

6. Be careful with satire.

Humour is a legitimate form of commentary, and the Bible itself uses irony and satire. But nicknames and mockery can quickly harden into contempt for opponents. The test is whether our words help others see the truth or just entertain those who already agree.

The Other Side of the Argument

In fairness, here’s how people would respond from different angles:

• Supporters of the transition would say the commentary conflates a local outage in Fiji with the Australian grid, ignores the evidence that renewables are now a cost-effective option, and trivialises a real threat to Pacific communities. They’d argue that the delays and costs of the transition are the price of long-term benefits, and that fossil-fuel systems also have costs, including pollution and emissions.
• Sceptics of the current policy would say that this is not just about one blackout, but about the pace of the transition, the cost to households and businesses, the risks to reliability as coal plants close, and the fact that Australia’s emissions are a small share of global emissions. They’d argue that the debate should be about engineering and economics, not moral signalling.
• Those in between would say both sides are partly right: reliability needs careful planning, and climate risks are real, and the best energy policy will be a pragmatic mixture of sources, including gas, storage, transmission and possibly nuclear, depending on the evidence.
• Pacific voices would add that their concern isn’t about conference logistics but about survival, and that energy security there often means getting off expensive diesel.

None of these positions requires bad faith. A fair reader can take the strongest points from each.

What Readers Can Do

• Check claims about costs and causes against primary sources before sharing them.
• Read widely. Look at AEMO reports, government budget papers, and analyses from different perspectives.
• Be a good steward at home. Look at your own energy use and costs, and help neighbours who are struggling with bills.
• Support Pacific partners through church-based and relief organisations that work on the ground.
• Engage respectfully. Write to your MPs, ask questions, and avoid assuming the worst of people who disagree.
• Pray for wise leaders, for communities facing rising seas, and for families under financial pressure.

Questions to Reflect On

• Have I shared a claim about energy or climate that I haven’t checked?
• Do I treat people who disagree with me about energy as fellow image-bearers or as opponents to defeat?
• How do I weigh care for creation, care for the poor and care for my own household?
• What would I need to see to change my mind on this issue?
• How could my church help people struggling with power bills or climate-related loss?

A Short Prayer

Lord, you made the heavens and the earth and entrusted them to our care. Give us wisdom to use your gifts well, honesty to speak the truth, and compassion for those who suffer, whether from rising seas or rising bills. Guide our leaders to make decisions that are fair, careful and sustainable. Keep the lights on in homes and hospitals, and let us shine with your light. Amen.