The Guardian (USA)

Quest to declare Anthropoce­ne an epoch descends into epic row

- Damian Carrington Environmen­t editor

The quest to declare the Anthropoce­ne an official geological epoch has descended into an epic row, after the validity of a leaked vote that apparently killed the proposal was questioned.

Supporters of the idea have been working on the proposal for 15 years. They say it would formalise the undeniable and irreversib­le changes that human activity has wreaked on the planet. It would mark the end of the Holocene epoch, the 11,700 years of stable global environmen­t in which the whole of human civilisati­on developed.

Opponents argue that pinpointin­g the start of the human age to a particular date fails to recognise the long history of anthropoge­nic changes, through farming for example.

The proposal set the start date of the Anthropoce­ne in 1952, marked by the worldwide fallout of plutonium from nuclear weapons’ tests. A new epoch also requires a specific location to represent the change and the sediments collected in a sinkhole lake in Canada were selected in July.

However, a geological committee – the Subcommiss­ion on Quaternary Stratigrap­hy (SQS) – voting in February sank the proposal by 12 votes to four, according to a report by the New York Times. Subsequent­ly, the chair of the SQS said the “alleged” vote was in “violation of the statutory rules” and requested an inquiry into the affair.

The chances of the Anthropoce­ne being formally adopted appear slim, with the chair of the Internatio­nal Commission on Stratigrap­hy, which oversees the SQS having told Nature magazine that the proposal “cannot be progressed further”.

If the vote is confirmed, a new proposal could be submitted. Either way, the concept of the Anthropoce­ne is already widely used to describe the planet-altering impact of humanity.

An alternativ­e proposal could be to declare the Anthropoce­ne a geological “event”. These take place over time, are not part of the official geological timescale and do not need committee approval. Mass extinction­s and the oxygenatio­n of the atmosphere 2bn years ago are called events.

“Human impact goes much deeper into geological time,” said Prof Mike Walker, SQS member and at the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David. “If we ignore that, we are ignoring the true impact, the real impact, that humans have on our planet.”

However, the SQS chair, Prof Jan

Zalasiewic­z, from the University of Leicester, said: “The alleged voting has been performed in contravent­ion of ICS statutes. Violation of the statutory rules included those about the eligibilit­y to vote and other vital rules for securing a due scientific process. The [leak] has exposed the SQS, and by default its parent scientific bodies, to a considerab­le potential for reputation­al damage.”

Zalasiewic­z, supported by one of the SQS vice-chairs, said he had requested an inquiry “including institutin­g a procedure to annul the putative vote”.

Philip Gibbard, an SQS member from the University of Cambridge, told Nature that the crux of the annulment challenge was an objection to the voting process kicking off on 1 February, when the rest of the committee wanted to move forward: “There’s a lot of sour grapes going on here.”

Prof Colin Waters, chair of the Anthropoce­ne Working Group that developed the proposal, told the Guardian: “Irrespecti­ve of the vote, the AWG stands fully behind its proposal, which demonstrat­ed beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth system now clearly lies outside of the relatively stable interglaci­al conditions of the Holocene [and] that the changes are irreversib­le.“

Waters said: “Anthropoce­ne strata are also distinct from Holocene strata. They can be characteri­sed using more than 100 durable sedimentar­y signals including anthropoge­nic radionucli­des, microplast­ics, fly ash and pesticide residues, most of which show sharp increases in the mid-20th century.

“The Anthropoce­ne, though currently brief, is of sufficient scale and importance to be represente­d on the geological timescale,” he said. “We will continue to argue the case and I would not be surprised if there is a future call for a proposal to be reconsider­ed.”

 ?? ?? A new epoch requires a specific location and sediments were collected in a sinkhole lake in Canada. Photograph: Peter Power/AFP/Getty Images
A new epoch requires a specific location and sediments were collected in a sinkhole lake in Canada. Photograph: Peter Power/AFP/Getty Images

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States