By Vijay Jayaraj
In July, a bone-chilling cold wave swept across South America, plunging nations like Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay into an energy crisis that laid bare the fragility of their power systems. Record-low temperatures, driven by an Antarctic air mass, pushed electricity grids to the brink, forced governments to ration gas, and left thousands without power for over a day.
This brutal winter exposed a stark truth: South America’s energy infrastructure, strained by poverty and uneven development, cannot afford to gamble on unreliable sources like wind and solar. For nations striving to lift millions out of poverty by boosting economic growth, abundant oil and gas offer the only practical path to surviving harsh winters and securing a prosperous future.
Grip of Antarctic Cold
Snow blanketed Mar del Plata, Argentina, for the first time in 34 years, while the Atacama Desert, the world’s driest region, saw rare snowfall. Buenos Aires shivered at minus 1.9 degrees Celsius – the city’s coldest since 1991. Suburbs like El Palomar dropped to minus 7.4 degrees Celsius for the first time in decades. On June 30, Chile and Argentina ranked among the planet’s coldest spots outside polar regions.
The sudden, massive demand for electricity and heating fuel was entirely predictable for such weather. Yet, the system could not cope. Widespread power cuts rolled across the region, leaving thousands of households without electricity for more than 24 hours. Imagine the discomfort – even terror – of a family huddled together in freezing temperatures as the lights go out, unsure of when warmth and safety would return.
South America’s energy grids, particularly in Argentina, suffer from high transmission losses – up to 15-20% in some regions. Adding intermittent sources like wind and solar, which regularly falter under extreme weather, only compounds the problem. During the July crisis, solar panels were useless under snow and wind turbines struggled in erratic conditions.
In these moments, there is no wind turbine, no solar installation, no climate directive that could save the continent. It was fossil fuels – gas- and coal-fired generation and diesel heating units – that kept the lights on and the cold at bay. That’s the reality.
Studies show “most of the temperature-related mortality in Central and South American countries is caused by cold … generating annual economic losses of $2.1 billion.”
In Argentina, for instance, frigid temperatures claim a staggering number of lives – more than 60,000 annually, which is seven times the number attributed to heat. Chile tells a similar story, with 47,800 lost to cold compared to a mere 4,500 to heat. These figures provide an undeniable testament to a globally observed reality: Cold, not warmth, is humanity’s greatest climate-related killer.
Resist Opposition to Oil and Gas Development
The priority should be to generate massive amounts of cheap and reliable power. Fortunately, South America is sitting on a treasure chest of oil and gas resources.
Argentina’s Vaca Muerta shale formation holds more than 300 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil and condensate resources. That’s more than enough to power for decades South America’s Southern Cone, a region below the Tropic of Capricorn that includes Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. Adding to this energy bounty are Brazil’s and Guyana’s offshore fields.
Global energy analysts project that South America will be responsible for an astounding 80% of the growth in global oil production outside OPEC and the United States over the next five years. Even Brazil’s President, Lula da Silva, often portrayed as a champion of the climate movement, recently gave the green light to a controversial, but economically essential, drilling campaign in the Foz do Amazonas basin.
This kind of development holds the promise of energy independence, economic prosperity, and a permanent shield against the sort of crisis witnessed this July.
The antithesis of this is the Net Zero movement, which operates from the boardrooms of European banks and Ivy League campuses with no connection to the streets of Montevideo or the rural plains of La Pampa. The working families of South America need jobs, heating, food, and public transport more than abstract carbon metrics.
Any attempt to derail South America’s progress in the energy sector must be met with fierce opposition from policymakers and the public alike.
The Antarctic cold wave was a reminder of both nature’s unpredictability and the continent’s potential. With courage and clarity, the region can harness its oil and gas wealth to build a future where no one is left in the cold – literally or economically.
This commentary was first published by BizPacReview on August 7, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very nice Vijay. Wind and solar can not sustain the grid. Wind and solar can not power a modern society. Remove all wind and solar from the grid. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators. It is that simple.
As long as Klaus Schwab is left with nothing, I’ll be happy.
Story tip:
Colorado law now in place requiring a cigarette/smoking label on Natural Gas appliances:
https://www.cpr.org/2025/08/07/health-warning-labels-gas-stoves-lawsuit/
I got a good laugh out of that. I expect about 1% of population to be fooled and care about the sticker 🙂
On wonders if electric stoves should carry a label about the risk of electrocution by using it. USA has around 1,000 deaths annually attributed to electrocution and 30,000 shock incidents some which will have been stoves so clearly using the same logic they need to warn the consumer.
“In Argentina, for instance, frigid temperatures claim a staggering number of lives – more than 60,000 annually, which is seven times the number attributed to heat. Chile tells a similar story, with 47,800 lost to cold compared to a mere 4,500 to heat”
***************
Where do these numbers come from? If remotely true, 667 Argentians would have to die from cold EACH DAY during the winter, and 513 EACH DAY in Chile. EVERY YEAR.
I call BOVEX,
I always thought Chile would be, y’know, Chillier.
I’ll see myself out.
I would think the numbers come from the study that is linked by the word ‘show’ highlighted in red:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11469888/
I haven’t read it myself though, don’t have time right now.
Yes, the study is misquoted. The Argentina number from the study starts with “Total deaths” of 686,333 in a 10 year study period, or roughly 68,633 per year in 3 locations studied. That 68K number is total deaths, not deaths from cold. I’ve cut-pasted some of the info from the study below, excuse the formatting…
Table 1.Summary of the locations, study periods, number of deaths, and temperature distributions for the countries included in the study
Country Locations Study period Total deaths Temperature (°C); mean (range)
Argentina 3 2005–2015 686,333 18.2 (0.4 to 33.9)
Brazil 18 1997–2018 3,895,158 23.4 (3.2 to 35.1)
Chile 4 2004–2014 325,462 13.7 (−1.7 to 27.5)
The total deaths have to be factored by cold and heat related mortality, given in Table 2;
Table 2.All-cause mortality attributable to cold and heat by country and climatic zone
MMTP (%) Cold AF (%) (95% eCI) Heat AF (%) (95% eCI)
Country
Argentina 79 8.95 (7.16, 10.56) 1.26 (0.97, 1.54)
Brazil 64 3.04 (2.57, 3.49) 0.78 (0.54, 1.01)
Chile 83 7.60 (5.22, 10.01) 0.66 (0.21, 1.05)
So it appears that 8.95% of total deaths in Argentina are attributable to cold in the locations studied, and 1.26% to heat. 8.95% of 68,633 is about 60/day, not 667, as the article would have you believe.
“and left thousands without power for over a day.”
Wow. Like, a WHOLE day? Happens regularly around here. Mostly due to trees and power lines. That’s why I have a whole house generator.
And all the poor, freezing people have one as well?
Remember the NE USA blackout that left people without electricity for 28 hours?
— By Walter Russell Mead July 7, 2025
Added comment: It’s like returning to the pre-’86 period, but with the technology developed over the most recent couple decades.
Source:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/a-fossil-fuel-boom-in-the-americas-7b9b1d8a
“oil and gas offer the only practical path”
Nukes are even better for grid power, and no worries about running out of it.
Overall, we should be saving fossil fuels for transport and other off-grid needs.
In the short term, of course use gas plants. Don’t hold things up waiting for nuclear, but new-tech nuke plants are pretty much ready now.