Zürcher Nachrichten - No 'human era' in Earth's geological history, scientists say

EUR -
AED 4.245911
AFN 76.881606
ALL 93.218906
AMD 422.095048
AOA 1060.17747
ARS 1724.883763
AUD 1.638748
AWG 2.082491
AZN 1.923974
BAM 1.955777
BBD 2.321673
BDT 142.688326
BHD 0.434695
BIF 3451.159509
BMD 1.156136
BND 1.477083
BOB 13.699839
BRL 5.876985
BSD 1.152686
BTN 109.688713
BWP 15.558817
BYN 3.43236
BYR 22660.274138
BZD 2.318273
CAD 1.612984
CDF 2615.754722
CHF 0.935881
CLF 0.026829
CLP 1055.917611
CNY 7.801148
CNH 7.796157
COP 3633.557369
CRC 523.993852
CUC 1.156136
CUP 30.637616
CVE 110.263706
CZK 24.258167
DJF 205.267592
DKK 7.47791
DOP 67.289211
DZD 152.967205
EGP 57.293328
ERN 17.342047
ETB 186.049717
FJD 2.553385
FKP 0.857252
GBP 0.858528
GEL 3.017423
GGP 0.857252
GHS 13.526841
GIP 0.857252
GMD 84.950214
GNF 10123.881221
GTQ 8.794897
GYD 241.157171
HKD 9.066771
HNL 30.895638
HRK 7.536626
HTG 150.718232
HUF 363.096284
IDR 20580.38469
ILS 3.468236
IMP 0.857252
INR 110.076327
IQD 1509.982284
IRR 1590323.474144
ISK 142.597486
JEP 0.857252
JMD 183.057852
JOD 0.8197
JPY 182.445223
KES 149.15825
KGS 101.1045
KHR 4681.945069
KMF 492.513789
KRW 1627.678205
KWD 0.356853
KYD 0.960589
KZT 540.233662
LAK 26025.694653
LBP 103223.088933
LKR 386.635464
LRD 208.057559
LSL 18.72658
LTL 3.41377
LVL 0.699336
LYD 7.331914
MAD 10.743074
MDL 20.044765
MGA 4918.942288
MKD 61.529278
MMK 2427.365524
MNT 4157.296339
MOP 9.314591
MRU 46.338456
MUR 54.419029
MVR 17.862474
MWK 1998.776549
MXN 20.093332
MYR 4.728717
MZN 73.882875
NAD 18.72658
NGN 1577.96467
NIO 42.419502
NOK 10.997597
NPR 175.501941
NZD 1.96672
OMR 0.442445
PAB 1.152686
PEN 3.903654
PGK 5.09394
PHP 70.183287
PKR 320.014545
PLN 4.299908
PYG 6853.919586
QAR 4.213651
RON 5.24458
RSD 117.338623
RUB 94.338893
RWF 1694.980114
SAR 4.329449
SBD 9.325045
SCR 16.705104
SDG 694.261718
SEK 10.961097
SGD 1.467714
SLE 28.426407
SOS 658.792271
SRD 43.778844
STD 23929.689987
STN 24.499713
SVC 10.085882
SZL 18.72278
THB 38.21027
TJS 10.633575
TMT 4.058039
TND 3.38636
TRY 55.144817
TTD 7.812908
TWD 37.286097
TZS 3051.764195
UAH 51.625994
UGX 4293.949621
USD 1.156136
UYU 46.399456
UZS 13785.838257
VES 873.764445
VND 30295.977227
VUV 137.068231
WST 3.160548
XAF 655.949304
XAG 0.018188
XAU 0.000266
XCD 3.124516
XCG 2.077476
XDR 0.81579
XOF 655.949304
XPF 119.331742
YER 275.618798
ZAR 18.667349
ZMK 10406.616979
ZMW 21.756745
ZWL 372.275461
  • CMSC

    0.0240

    21.744

    +0.11%

  • CMSD

    -0.1600

    21.82

    -0.73%

  • RBGPF

    0.7600

    70.5

    +1.08%

  • RELX

    0.0485

    35.52

    +0.14%

  • RIO

    1.4500

    101.1

    +1.43%

  • GSK

    0.7900

    52.96

    +1.49%

  • BCE

    -0.0200

    22.75

    -0.09%

  • AZN

    1.4100

    161.42

    +0.87%

  • RYCEF

    0.2300

    20.85

    +1.1%

  • JRI

    0.1500

    12.81

    +1.17%

  • BCC

    2.3400

    86.6

    +2.7%

  • NGG

    0.4700

    80.88

    +0.58%

  • VOD

    0.1900

    16.19

    +1.17%

  • BTI

    0.6000

    59.33

    +1.01%

  • BP

    -0.6000

    41.63

    -1.44%

No 'human era' in Earth's geological history, scientists say
No 'human era' in Earth's geological history, scientists say / Photo: Peter POWER - AFP

No 'human era' in Earth's geological history, scientists say

A top panel of geologists has decided not to grant the 'human age' its own distinct place in Earth's geological timeline after disagreeing over when exactly our era might have begun.

Text size:

After 15 years of deliberation, a team of scientists made the case that humankind has so fundamentally altered the natural world that a new phase of Earth's existence -- a new epoch -- has already begun.

Soaring greenhouse gases, the spread of microplastics, decimation of other species, and fallout from nuclear tests -- all were submitted as evidence that the world entered the Anthropocene, or era of humans, in the mid-20th century.

But the proposal was rejected in a contentious vote that has been upheld by the International Union of Geological Sciences, the field's governing body said in a statement published on its website on Thursday.

The decision "to reject the proposal for an Anthropocene Epoch as a formal unit of the Geologic Time Scale is approved", it said.

There is no avenue for appeal, though some involved in the voting committee have raised allegations over the conduct of the ballot and a perceived lack of due process.

The union denied these assertions and called the outcome "a decisive rejection of the Anthropocene proposal" by the field's pre-eminent experts.

There were four votes in favour, 12 against and three abstentions, it added.

Despite this, the Anthropocene would endure as a widely used term: "It will remain an invaluable descriptor of human impact on the Earth system," the union said.

- 'Missed opportunity' -

In 2009 scientists began an enquiry that ultimately concluded that the Holocene epoch -- which began 11,700 years ago as the last ice age ended -- gave way to the Anthropocene around 1950.

They gathered a trove of evidence to show this, including traces of radioactive material found in the layered sediment of lakes, the global upheaval of plants and animals, and omnipresent "forever chemicals".

But opponents argued mankind had been reshaping the planet long before the 1950s, pointing to defining moments like the advent of farming and the industrial revolution.

Martin Head, who was part of the team that advocated for the Anthropocene, said there was "a myriad of geological signals" and lamented the way the process was handled.

"I feel this has been a missed opportunity to recognise and endorse a simple reality, that our planet left its natural functioning state in the mid-20th century," Head, a professor of earth sciences at Brock University in Canada, told AFP.

There was no disagreement that 'the age of man' had resulted in profound planetary changes, said Erle Ellis, an environmental scientist critical of the Anthropocene proposal.

But scientists weren't convinced this impact represented an epoch, no less one that definitively began only seven decades ago, said Ellis, professor of geography and environmental systems at the University of Maryland.

"The truth is, there was never a need for a firm boundary. It just wasn't the critical thing," he told AFP earlier this month after the proposal was first voted down.

T.Furrer--NZN