What does the rejection of the Anthropocene as a geological epoch mean? – 03/14/2024 – Fundamental Science

At the beginning of March, news shook geology and reverberated in the public debate: no, we are not officially in the Anthropocene yet. In a voting session, members of the Subcommittee on Quaternary Stratigraphy — one of the sections of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) — decided that it is too early to say that we have entered another geological epoch.

The term has been part of the cultural lexicon around the world for more than two decades, having been proposed by biologist Eugene Stoermer and Nobel laureate in Chemistry Paul Crutzen in a bulletin from the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program in 2000.

Whether or not the Anthropocene should be included in the chronostratigraphic table — or in the official history book of planet Earth — is a slightly more recent debate, around 15 years old. The Anthropocene Working Group (which is also part of the IUGS) made the formal proposal for this inclusion, and the idea would be to recognize human action as a geological force capable of modifying the planet. With its atomic bombs and omnipresent plastic pollution, humanity leaves nothing to be desired in terms of weathering and volcanoes, and would be leading the planet at the end of the Holocene (started just under 12 thousand years ago) towards a new era: that of humans.

Of course, in science these processes are very meticulous and generally quite bureaucratic. In the case of the IUGS, suggestions for change begin in smaller research groups and go up in level — or changing levels in the hierarchy, almost like the path between the layers from the center to the skin of an onion — until reaching the top of the IUGS, moment in which it receives the final sanction or veto.

In this case, the proposal began in the Anthropocene Working Group — which last year created a lake in Canada as a geological marker that represents the new era. In other words, the main condition required by science in a process like this was met. The proposal then “went up” to the Subcommittee on Quaternary Stratigraphy, but was blocked there and, at least for now, is prevented from taking the next step, which would be a vote by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (official regulator of the chronostratigraphic table) .

For the working group proposing the new era, the decay of radionuclides present in the dust from atomic bomb explosions between the 1940s and 1950s is a clear sign of the human impact on the planet. From Mongolia to the Arctic, no place in the world is free from these radioactive particles, as demonstrated by the layers of clay and rock in the bottom of Lake Crawford. Therefore, researchers argue that the Anthropocene should have begun at the beginning of the second half of the 20th century.

However, for 12 of the 18 members of the Quartenary Subcommittee, the cutoff date could also be the start of the emission of fossil pollutants into the atmosphere with the First Industrial Revolution in the 18th century; or it could be located in an even more distant past, with the beginning of agriculture. As Erle Ellis, professor at the University of Maryland in the United States and former member of the Anthropocene Working Group, argues, “its recent date and depth are too narrow to encompass the most profound evidence of planetary changes caused by humanity.”

The decision has nothing to do with geologists denying climate change or humanity’s impact on the planet, as some deniers and misinformers would like. For Ellis, the Anthropocene, like the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago — or the production of the first oxygen molecules around 3.5 billion years ago by cyanobacteria — should be considered an event. The vote is being questioned and the closure of the issue will take time.

A practical consequence of all this quid pro quo is the agitation of waves to make disinformers and people with vested interests surf (nothing is easier than distorting science based on fanciful arguments). The political effects — especially in view of Donald Trump’s possible return to power, as Marcelo Leite recalled — could be catastrophic. After all, there are many interests at stake and whoever is benefiting from the dysfunctions of capitalism certainly does not want a change in the status quo. Even if it costs the perpetuation of human existence on the planet (what is the life of future generations in the face of billions of dollars in the here and now?).

Whether we are officially in a new geological epoch or not, it is undeniable that we already live in the Anthropocene. As climatologist Carlos Nobre said to his colleague Giovana Girardi, “for climate scientists, it is obvious that we are already [nessa nova época]”. The fight over the definition of the term in the corridors of the IUGS does not exempt governments, companies and civil society from their greatest responsibility: the maintenance of human life in the face of the challenges it has caused itself. The Earth will continue to exist for at least another five billion years in the future — it will possibly be swallowed by a dying Sun in the red giant phase. The question that the Anthropocene forces us to think about is: how long will we last as a species?

*

Meghie Rodrigues is a science journalist.

The Fundamental Science blog is edited by Serrapilheira, a private, non-profit institute that promotes science in Brazil. Sign up for the Serrapilheira newsletter to keep up to date with news from the institute and the blog.

LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access five free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.