Progress toward sustainability shouldn't depend on who wins the election
En las primeras semanas del gobierno de José Antonio Kast, Chile se enfrenta a una encrucijada que trasciende la política partidista: la retirada de 43 decretos ambientales acumulados durante años plantea preguntas antiguas sobre la memoria institucional y la fragilidad de los compromisos colectivos. Un grupo de científicos chilenos, al publicar su advertencia en la revista Science, recuerda que la sostenibilidad de un país no puede depender del ciclo electoral, sino de una voluntad que persista más allá de los gobiernos. Lo que está en juego no es solo regulación, sino la coherencia de una nación frente a sus propios compromisos climáticos y ante el mundo.
- En su primera semana, el gobierno de Kast retiró 43 decretos ambientales de golpe, desmantelando años de trabajo regulatorio en materia de clima, biodiversidad y salud pública.
- La comunidad científica respondió con una medida inusual: publicar una carta de advertencia en Science, una de las revistas más prestigiosas del mundo, señalando el peligro de retroceder en compromisos que tomaron múltiples administraciones construir.
- Entre los decretos retirados hay siete vinculados a la meta de carbono neutralidad para 2050, once relacionados con el recién creado Servicio de Biodiversidad, y otros que protegían los salares de alta montaña frente a la extracción de litio.
- Solo seis de los 43 decretos han sido reingresados al proceso; los 37 restantes permanecen en un limbo que los científicos exigen aclarar con criterios transparentes y comunicación pública.
- La carta revela una tensión de fondo: Chile posee las mayores reservas de litio del mundo, y la disputa entre extracción de recursos y protección ambiental nunca ha sido tan concreta ni tan urgente.
Un grupo de científicos chilenos publicó una carta de advertencia en la revista Science, dirigida al gobierno del presidente José Antonio Kast, tras la retirada de 43 decretos ambientales durante su primera semana en el poder. Los investigadores señalan que esta decisión pone en riesgo avances construidos a lo largo de múltiples administraciones en materia de acción climática, conservación de la biodiversidad y salud pública.
Lo retirado no es menor: siete decretos estaban vinculados a la Ley Marco de Cambio Climático y al compromiso de carbono neutralidad para 2050; once correspondían al Servicio de Biodiversidad y Áreas Protegidas, creado apenas en 2023; y otros buscaban proteger al menos el 30 por ciento de los salares de alta montaña frente a la extracción de litio, un recurso del que Chile posee algunas de las mayores reservas del planeta.
Hasta ahora, solo seis de los 43 decretos han sido reingresados al proceso administrativo. Los científicos exigen que el gobierno explique con claridad los criterios que guiarán el destino de los 37 restantes, y que esa información sea comunicada de manera oportuna a la ciudadanía.
Más allá de los decretos específicos, la carta expresa una preocupación estructural: los compromisos ambientales de largo plazo no pueden quedar a merced de los vaivenes electorales. Los investigadores advierten que revertir abruptamente años de trabajo regulatorio no solo daña el medioambiente, sino también la credibilidad internacional de Chile como país comprometido con la sostenibilidad. La decisión de recurrir a Science como plataforma revela cuán profunda es esa inquietud dentro de la comunidad científica.
A group of Chilean scientists has taken the unusual step of publishing a warning letter in the journal Science, sounding an alarm about the direction of environmental policy under President José Antonio Kast. The letter, which appeared in recent days, focuses on a decision made during Kast's first week in office: the withdrawal of 43 environmental decrees that had been developed and advanced under the previous administration of Gabriel Boric.
The scientists frame this move as a threat to regulatory progress that took years to build. "The request has generated alarm among Chile's scientific and public policy communities," they write, "because it endangers advances in conservation, climate action, and public health that were developed across multiple administrations." The concern is not merely about losing paperwork—these decrees represent concrete commitments to some of Chile's most pressing environmental challenges.
Breaking down what was withdrawn reveals the scope of what hangs in the balance. Seven of the decrees were tied to Chile's Framework Law on Climate Change, which establishes a binding target for the country to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. Another eleven were connected to the newly created Biodiversity and Protected Areas Service, established just three years ago in 2023 to oversee conservation efforts across the nation's territory. Additional decrees proposed establishing a network of protected salt flats—aiming to safeguard at least 30 percent of these high-altitude ecosystems from lithium extraction. This last point carries particular weight: Chile holds some of the world's largest lithium reserves, making the tension between resource extraction and environmental protection especially acute.
Six of the 43 withdrawn decrees have already been resubmitted for continued processing, leaving 37 still in limbo. The scientists are calling for clarity on what happens next. They want the Kast administration to fully disclose the criteria being used to evaluate the remaining decrees and to explain the reasoning behind whatever decisions are made. They also want these decisions communicated clearly and promptly to the public.
Underlying the letter is a deeper concern about how environmental policy gets made in Chile. The scientists argue that progress toward a sustainable economy should not rise and fall with each change of government. Long-term environmental commitments—especially those tied to international climate agreements and biodiversity targets—require continuity that transcends electoral cycles. A new administration can certainly reshape policy, but the scientists are warning that abrupt reversals of multi-year regulatory work risk undermining both Chile's environmental standing and its credibility as a nation serious about sustainability.
The letter represents a rare moment of public pressure from the scientific community on a sitting government. It suggests that the concerns about these withdrawn decrees run deep enough that researchers felt compelled to use one of the world's most prestigious scientific journals as a platform. What happens to the remaining 37 decrees, and whether the government responds to the call for transparency, will likely shape not just Chile's environmental trajectory but also the relationship between its scientific establishment and political leadership.
Citações Notáveis
The request has generated alarm among Chile's scientific and public policy communities because it endangers advances in conservation, climate action, and public health developed across multiple administrations.— Chilean scientists in Science magazine letter
The new government should instead safeguard regulatory continuity and maintain long-term environmental policy commitments.— Chilean scientists in Science magazine letter
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did scientists feel they needed to publish this in Science rather than just raising concerns through normal channels?
Because normal channels hadn't worked. These decrees had been developed over years, across administrations. Withdrawing 43 of them in a single week signaled something different—not a policy adjustment, but a wholesale reversal. Publishing in Science makes it international, makes it permanent, makes it impossible to ignore.
The letter asks for transparency. Do you think the government will provide it?
That's the real question. They've already resubmitted six decrees, which suggests some willingness to engage. But 37 are still suspended. Transparency would mean explaining why some environmental protections are worth keeping and others aren't. That's a harder conversation than just withdrawing them quietly.
What's the lithium angle? Why does that matter so much?
Chile has enormous lithium reserves. The world needs lithium for batteries, for the energy transition. But extracting it from salt flats in the high Andes uses massive amounts of water in a region that's already water-stressed. The scientists are saying: you can't have both unlimited extraction and a sustainable economy. You have to choose, and you have to do it transparently.
Is this really about one president, or is it about something bigger?
It's about both. Kast has a particular ideology around deregulation. But the letter's real argument is that environmental policy can't be hostage to whoever wins the election. Climate commitments, biodiversity targets—these are 30-year projects. They need to survive political transitions.
What happens if the government ignores the scientists?
Then you have a credibility problem. Not just with the scientific community, but internationally. Chile has positioned itself as a climate leader. If it starts dismantling climate and conservation infrastructure, that story changes. And other countries notice.