SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
It’s probably better to think of the geological moment of human techno-transformation and population explosion as an event—like a global conflagration—rather than a durable new regime.
Early this month it was reported that members of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (which is part of the International Union of Geological Sciences), who had been tasked with adopting or rejecting a proposal to declare that we are in a new geological epoch called the Anthropocene, declined the motion. This comes after years of lobbying by many Earth scientists to formally acknowledge that humanity is in the process of changing the planet in ways that any future geologist would find obvious and undeniable.
My first reaction to the news was disappointment. I’ve been using the term “Anthropocene” for years, and had the impression that the main opposition to its formal adoption came from those who believe that humanity is incapable of changing Earth systems in ways that will make a difference for thousands or millions of years to come. Assuming that humans are too puny to alter the planet significantly is a mental pathway habitually trodden by climate change deniers, and it’s an excuse for doing nothing to avert a hellish future.
However, it turns out that the dispute among the roughly 20 scholars on the subcommission was mainly about whether humanity’s impact on Earth should be viewed as an event—like a mass extinction or an asteroid impact—or as the start of a new epoch. The majority favored the former; and, even though the legitimacy of their decision is being questioned, I think they’re right.
We’re still in the midst of the transitory event that is driving the end of the Holocene and the beginning of something else.
Ripples from human actions during the last few decades will spread far into the future. However, the consequences of the activities that are currently having profound impacts on the climate, oceans, and biota will limit those activities, so that humanity’s industrial growth-based economy driven by fossil fuels will be mostly if not entirely gone by the end of this century. There will likely be fewer people on the planet then, and they will have far less power per capita. Earth simply doesn’t have enough resources to enable a continuation of population growth and economic expansion for much longer before a decline commences. We will have the opportunity to shape that decline somewhat—to make it more beneficial by sharing the burden of contraction, or to make it more painful by fighting over what’s left—but the techno-optimist vision of a future of ever-increasing human potency is a mere fantasy, and a dangerous one at that.
So, it’s probably better to think of the geological moment (a couple of centuries at most) of human techno-transformation and population explosion as an event—like a global conflagration—rather than a durable new regime (geological epochs tend to be several million years in duration). The results of human overshoot will persist: If there are people around 10,000 or even a million years from now, they will be able to discern residue from the 20th and 21st centuries in the stratigraphy of lake beds around the world. That’s when the Earth’s climate changed; when toxic chemicals suddenly proliferated through atmosphere, soil, and waters; when glaciers melted; when radioactive particles were dispersed by atomic weapons tests; when untold numbers of animals and plants went extinct; and when ocean currents shifted.
The generations to come will inhabit a different world indeed. Earth’s new regime, once it has stabilized, will surely be classifiable as a new geological epoch—but currently it’s too soon to name it. We’re still in the midst of the transitory event that is driving the end of the Holocene and the beginning of something else.
Perhaps it’s this event that we should be naming. I hereby nominate “The Anthropic Unraveling” or “The Great Burning” as suitable candidates for the title.
The Anthropocene is classified as a geological "event" at this point—as are mass extinctions and rapid expansions of biodiversity.
The idea underpinning scientists' push to recognize the current time period as a new geological epoch called the Anthropocene dates back more than 100 years, but on Tuesday, a committee of experts voted down the proposal to officially declare a new age defined by human beings' impact on the Earth.
The panel, organized by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), was tasked with weighing whether the Holocene—the epoch that began at the close of the last ice age, more than 11,000 years ago—has ended, and if so, when precisely the Anthropocene began.
Another group, the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), had previously posed that an Anthropocene—an epoch during which "the scale and character of human activities have become so great as to compete with natural geological and geophysical forces," as British geologist Robert Lionel Sherlock argued in 1922—began in the mid-20th century.
Around that period, the U.S. and other countries began testing nuclear weapons while fossil fuel production began ramping up significantly, intensifying planetary heating, ocean acidification, and other climate impacts.
AWG presented geological evidence compiled at Crawford Lake in Canada, where radioactive isotopes dating back to the 1950s are embedded in the lake bed, to argue in favor of an Anthropocene that began decades ago.
Several members of the IUGS committee found that the time period proposed began too recently and "failed to capture the earlier impact of humans during, say, the development of farming or the onset of the Industrial Revolution," as Yale Environment 360 noted.
AWG members Simon Turner of University College London and Colin Waters of the University of Leicester told New Scientist Tuesday that the voting result was "very disappointing given the huge contribution by AWG to develop our case."
"All these lines of evidence indicate that the Anthropocene, though currently brief, is—we emphasize—of sufficient scale and importance to be represented on the Geological Time Scale," they said.
The academics who opposed recognizing a new geological epoch in the 12-4 vote are among the scientists who "prefer to describe the Anthropocene as an 'event,' not an 'epoch,'" The New York Times reported.
Geological "events" don't appear on the official Geological Time Scale, "yet many of the planet's most significant happenings are called events, including mass extinctions, rapid expansions of biodiversity, and the filling of Earth's skies with oxygen 2.1 to 2.4 billion years ago," according to the Times.
Michael Mann, director of the Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media at University of Pennsylvania, called the disagreement over the terminology "a tempest in a teapot" that won't stop scientists from identifying the current time period as one in which humans are significantly and negatively impacting the planet.
While the scientific community is not yet labeling the current time period as a new epoch, committee member Jan Piotrowski of Aarhus University in Denmark told the Times, "Our impact is here to stay and to be recognizable in the future in the geological record."
"There is absolutely no question about this," Piotrowski said.
Lake Crawford in Ontario, Canada, has been chosen as the site with the sedimentary record that will be used as the dividing line between the Holocene and the Anthropocene.
Are we really living in the Anthropocene, the geological time marked by the global impact of human activity? And if so, when did it begin?
These are questions that the Anthropocene Working Group—established in 2009 by the International Commission on Stratigraphy to propose a definition of the concept and to estimate its potential as a unit of geologic time—is hoping to answer.
The group announced on July 11, 2023, that Lake Crawford in Ontario, Canada, had been chosen as the site with the sedimentary record that would be used to define the beginning of the Anthropocene.
Studies have concluded that the Anthropocene is significant on a geologic scale because of the rapidity and magnitude of recent human impacts on processes operating on the Earth’s surface.
What makes this site so special that it holds the dividing line between different geological epochs?
Since its formation, the Anthropocene Working Group has evaluated various types of physical, chemical, and biological evidence preserved in sediments and rocks, and it has published numerous scientific papers that have explored their nature and relevance.
These studies have concluded that the Anthropocene is significant on a geologic scale because of the rapidity and magnitude of recent human impacts on processes operating on the Earth’s surface. Many of these impacts have generated irreversible changes that exceed the small range of natural variability of the Holocene, which began 11,700 years ago.
In the geologic strata, the Anthropocene Working Group has identified a significant set of indicators that coincide with the so-called “Great Acceleration” of the mid-20th century, driven by an unprecedented increase in human population, energy consumption, industrialization, and globalization following the end of World War II. These include the following:
Over the years, the Anthropocene Working Group has mostly agreed that the Anthropocene is geologically real and should be formalized as an independent unit within the international scale of geologic time.
Its onset would be in the mid-20th century, in the 1950s, according to the global signals recorded in sediments since then.
The Anthropocene Working Group established that it is necessary to determine its place of reference by means of a material and temporal boundary called a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point, or GSSP—colloquially, a “golden spike.” This is the most widely accepted method for formalizing geologic units over the past 540 million years.
Professor Francine McCarthy of Brock University points to a section of a Crawford Lake core sample indicating the Anthropocene period at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto.
(Photo: Lance McMillan/Toronto Star via Getty Images)
Since 2019, a collaborative project between the Anthropocene Working Group and numerous research laboratories has been underway as part of an international initiative called Anthropocene Curriculum, promoted by the Haus der Kulturen der Welt and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, both in Germany.
Twelve detailed proposals were initially submitted for different geological sections that could host this GSSP, located on five continents and situated in eight different geological environments. All of them were published in 2023 in the scientific journal Anthropocene Review. These papers were the main source of information for the voting members of the Anthropocene Working Group during the selection process.
The Anthropocene Working Group finally reviewed nine reference sections in detail. Suitable candidates were those containing thin layers of sediment that could be analyzed from year to year and whose age could also be corroborated by the presence of radioactive elements to ensure a complete sedimentary record.
A “golden spike” requires the local presence of a physical marker that can be seen with the naked eye and at least one indicator signal, such as a geochemical change, that is found in sediments and rocks of the same age and across the globe.
The stratigraphic procedures established to decide on a GSSP are already standardized in geology and are common for the definition of any geological time. Thus, a “golden spike” requires the local presence of a physical marker that can be seen with the naked eye and at least one indicator signal, such as a geochemical change, that is found in sediments and rocks of the same age and across the globe.
Most of the proposals identified plutonium as the primary indicator and proposed the onset of the Anthropocene from an increase in the signal of this radioactive element.
Initial discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of each location began in October 2022, and the list was narrowed to three.
According to the results, the most relevant geological sections were located in Beppu Bay, Japan; Sihailongwan Lake, China; and Crawford Lake. After a detailed analysis of the nature of their plutonium signal and a new vote, the Chinese and Canadian lake sites were finalists.
In the end, Crawford Lake received 61% of the votes and was chosen as the site of the GSSP for the Anthropocene epoch.
It is very important not to confuse the start of human activity and the Anthropocene.
The sediment layers in the lake bed, west of Toronto, were originally investigated to demonstrate the region’s sporadic occupation by Native American peoples and subsequent colonization by Europeans. The new geological study has increased the number of indicators preserved in its various annual layers, which are formed by an alternation of pale calcite, deposited in summer, and dark organic laminae, accumulated in winter.
The layer proposed as a visual marker for the GSSP is 6.1 inches (15.6 centimeters) deep at the base of a calcite sheet deposited in the summer of 1950. It was selected because of the rapid increase in plutonium thereafter. This signal also coincides with an increase in carbonaceous particles and a major ecosystem change identified by a decline in elm pollen and a replacement in diatom species, a type of algae.
It is very important not to confuse the start of human activity and the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene does not include the initial impact of humans, which was regional and grew over time, but it is defined as a consequence of the planetary response to the enormous impact of the Great Acceleration.
The Anthropocene is part of geologic time. Formalizing it precisely will help determine its meaning and use in all sciences and other academic disciplines. The end of a relatively stable epoch in Earth’s history, the Holocene, will thus be recognized.