Controversy with the Anthropocene: humanity still does not know in which geological epoch it lives

The idea of ​​the Anthropocene—that humanity has been living since 1950 in a new geological epoch characterized by human pollution—has become so popular in recent years that even the Royal Spanish Academy adopted the term in the Dictionary of the Language in 2021. Academics were in too much of a hurry this time.

The concept is still up in the air, in the midst of vehement controversy among specialists.

Members of the committee of experts that must make the decision at the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) - the Subcommittee on Quaternary Stratigraphy - have leaked this Tuesday to

that they have voted majority against recognizing the existence of the Anthropocene .

However, the president of the Subcommittee, geologist Jan Zalasiewicz, explains to EL PAÍS that the preliminary result of the vote has been announced without his authorization and that there are still "some pending issues with the votes that must be resolved."

Humanity still does not know in what geological era it lives.

The Dutch chemist Paul Crutzen, winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for illuminating the hole in the ozone layer, proposed in 2000 that the planet had entered a new era, caused by the brutal impact of human beings.

An international team of specialists, the Anthropocene Working Group, has analyzed the scientific facts since 2009 and last year presented a proposal to officially proclaim this new geological epoch, marked by the radioactivity of atomic bombs and pollutants from burning. of coal and oil.

The tiny Crawford Lake, on the outskirts of Toronto (Canada), was the ideal place to exemplify the beginning of the Anthropocene, thanks to the sediments at its bottom, undisturbed for centuries.

The majority of members of the IUCG Quaternary Stratigraphy Subcommittee have voted against the proposal, according to the American newspaper.

British geologist Colin Waters, leader of the Anthropocene Working Group, explains to EL PAÍS that he has found out from the press.

“We have not yet received official confirmation directly from the secretary of the Quaternary Stratigraphy Subcommittee.

It seems that

receives the results before us, it is very disappointing,” Waters laments.

The geologist acknowledges that the ruling, if confirmed, would be the end of his current proposal, but he does not give up.

“We have many eminent researchers who want to continue as a group, informally, defending the evidence that the Anthropocene should be formalized as an epoch,” he says.

In his opinion, the current geological strata – contaminated by radioactive isotopes, microplastics, ash and pesticides – have changed irreversibly compared to those of the Holocene, the geological epoch that began more than 10,000 years ago, after the last ice age.

“Given the existing evidence, which continues to mount, I would not be surprised by a future call to reconsider our proposal,” says Waters, of the University of Leicester.

The head of the Anthropocene Working Group maintains that there are “some procedural issues” that call into question the validity of the vote.

Italian geologist Silvia Peppoloni, head of the IUCG Geoethics Commission, confirms that her team has produced a report on this fight between the Quaternary Stratigraphy Subcommittee and the Anthropocene Working Group.

The document is on the table of the president of the UICG, the British John Ludden.

Canadian geologist Francine McCarthy was convinced that Lake Crawford would convince the skeptics.

From the outside it seems small, barely 250 meters long, but its depth is close to 25 meters.

Its surface waters do not mix with those of its bed, so the bottom soil can be analyzed like a lasagna, in which each layer accumulates sediments from the atmosphere.

This underwater calendar from Lake Crawford reveals the so-called Great Acceleration, the moment around 1950 in which humanity began to leave an increasingly evident footprint, with the dropping of atomic bombs, the massive burning of oil and coal, and the extinction of species.

“Ignoring the enormous impact of humans on our planet since the mid-20th century has potentially harmful consequences, by minimizing the importance of scientific data to address the evident change in the Earth system, as Paul Crutzen pointed out almost 25 years ago. years,” warns McCarthy.

You can write to us at