The final blow to declaring the Anthropocene a geological ‘era’? His defenders appeal for votes

On July 11, when the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) announced that Lake Crawford in Canada had been chosen to represent the beginning of this geological change caused by human activity on the planet, war drums were already sounding. Were staying. Members of the Subcommittee on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS), which is tasked with deciding whether to accept the Anthropocene as a geological “era”, then expressed their discomfort and called a press conference on AWG members to abandon the procedures. Accused of. Official circuits and not submitting mandatory reports.

Eight months later, and as in any good thriller series, there is tension Solved As a leak shows: Some members of the subcommittee told The New York Times this Tuesday that the voting has already taken place and that defenders of the Anthropocene have lost the battle. However, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Subcommittee have formally requested this Wednesday that the vote be canceled and assured that the statute has not been respected.,

What’s going on over here? Does this mean that the recognition of the Anthropocene geological era Has it been stopped or can it still continue? These are the keys to understanding it.

What is the discussion?

The concept of the “Anthropocene” was coined in 2000 by Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Paul Crutzen. To give a name corresponding to the term Holocene (the last and current era within the Quaternary period in which we live and which began 11,700 years ago) to the stage marked by human activity. This concept became increasingly popular, which well reflects the enormous changes made by humans, even in geology. But scientists began their own debating process to see whether it was worth considering an “era”, as Crutzen’s accidental name had initially suggested, linking it with the Holocene.

In 2009, the International Commission on Stratigraphy, which manages these changes, formed the Anthropocene Working Group to decide whether to approve the designation of this new geological period, as well as a stratotype or reference point. The ideal place to keep it should also be decided. The formal process involved presenting the group’s final report to the Quaternary Stratigraphy Subcommittee, which would vote on it. If approved, the case will pass the decision to the International Commission on Stratigraphy and from there, if approved, it will be submitted to the final criteria of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) members, with a requirement of more than 60 will be presented. % votes in each of these stages.

This hurdle is at that first stage of the course, where, apparently, the process is halted if the vote held is deemed successful.

What happened now?

As elDiario.es has been able to confirm, the vote of the Quaternary Stratigraphy Subcommittee took place on March 4 and resulted in 12 votes against and 4 in favor, with two abstentions and three members of the Commission abstaining. If we stick to the formalism governing these processes, it is the end of the race: the requirements to consider the Anthropocene an “epoch” are not met, unless the arguments and claims of those making the appeals are taken into account. Is not kept. has been Cancelled. Vote. In any case, if the process is stopped it does not mean that it is not recognized that the change generated by human activity is a reality, it is only discussed what scientific label it deserves.

What do defenders of the Anthropocene refer to as an “era”?

In a statement published 24 hours after the leak, Jan Zalasiewicz and Martin J., chair and vice chair of the Subcommittee on Quaternary Stratigraphy, respectively. Head announced that he had requested that the “alleged vote” be annulled, noting that the statute had been voided. Violations of the International Commission on Stratigraphy. They believe that rules on members’ voting eligibility have been broken, scientific due process has not been ensured, and the requirements of democratic decision making have been ignored.

They have to prove that our nearly 300 page report is invalid, this is how science works

Among his arguments, he says that the vote was approved even though the President and Vice President were against calling it now, and that many of the members who voted had died (meaning that those necessary to make the decision were dead). There was no quorum) ) was valid). Another powerful reason is that in December-January they prepared a complaint document before the Geoethics Commission of the IUGS, which issued a report on the case on January 19 and which established a series of measures to be taken that did not respect Has gone. Some. Subcommittee members.

According to multiple sources, the report was critical of the methods of those who called for the vote and reached them three days in advance, which reportedly led to rapid leaks to the media. “On the other hand, we have not received counter-reports based on scientific data,” says Spanish geologist Alejandro Serrata, a UPV/EHU researcher and member of the Anthropocene Working Group. “They have to prove that our nearly 300-page report is invalid, that’s how science works.”

What do those who voted against say?

Opponents of the proposal to recognize the Anthropocene as an “era” believe that members of the working group (AWG) have acted as propagandists and violated the subcommittee’s operating rules. stanley finney He, who was chair of the International Commission on Stratigraphy between 2008 and 2016, says the working group sent its report in early November and then the vote was initiated on time and appropriately. According to them, when a proposal reaches the subcommittee there are 30 days for discussion and 30 days for voting, and Zalasiewicz and Head wanted to extend the deadline. “They didn’t want to vote because they knew they were going to lose,” he says. Regarding the leak to The New York Times, he confirmed that the vote is not secret and the policy has always been to make it public in an open and transparent manner. Have to do.

“What had to happen happened,” says Asier Hilario, scientific director of the Basque Coast Geopark and president of the International Geological Heritage Commission of the IUGS. “Basically, there has been too much publicity and self-promotion in relation to this issue in recent years and the channels established by the Commission have not been respected. People are giving up and ultimately the proposal has not been approved even at the subcommittee level. “He has been the perfect example of how not to do things.”

In Finney’s view, the task force was tasked with investigating and instead they went ahead and became advocates of one cause, without regard for others. “If you have different ideas you are challenging dogma,” he says. “Because of their media campaign,” he argues, “public opinion has been confused, to the extent that many believe it was already approved.”

Due to their media campaign, public opinion has become confused, to the extent that many believe it was already approved.

On the merits of the case, Finney stressed that he does not deny the impact of humans on the planet, but he believes that the idea of ​​”era” as a whole is not consistent with scientific criteria applied in geology. He says, “We geologists don’t use the geological scale for events that occur in historical time, we use the human scale of time.” In his and others’ opinion, the Anthropocene should be considered an “event” that does not require approval in any subcommittee. “And if they defend that the place where it is marked is Lake Crawford, then at most it should have a geographical name, like Crawfordian,

What is the next step?

“We, as a group of many distinguished researchers in our field of expertise, intend to continue, informally if necessary, to argue that the evidence for the Anthropocene as an epoch should be formalized. “Requires a presentation consistent with the scientific data presented.” Colin Waters, chair of the Anthropocene Working Group, explains. If higher officials confirm the previous vote, he concedes, “the present proposal cannot proceed.” But, given the significant problems with the voting process and circumstances, he is not sure the voting will hold and expects it will have to be repeated.

Was it a losing battle from the beginning?

The way most geologists work with phases lasting millions of years makes it extremely difficult for them to think of an “era” as an “epoch”, a period of time that is ongoing And it has lasted for a certain period. breath From geological point of view. The formal steps they must take to achieve this are a path of obstacles, as commissions require a 60% vote in favor, with many experts from deep periods in our planet’s history labeling them against. Present gives bias.

Apart from formal processes, and waiting for internal organizations to prove them right, defenders of the Anthropocene as an “epoch” consider it proven beyond all doubt that the Earth system is now clearly out of relatively stable interglacial conditions. Is. Beginning about 11,700 years ago, which characterizes the Holocene epoch, these changes are collectively irreversible, and Anthropocene levels are distinct from Holocene levels because they contain anthropogenic nuclear isotopes, microplastics, fly ash, and human waste., in the middle ” Coincides with the “Great Acceleration” of the 20th century.

If it is not recognized, why did the RAE accept this term? Anthropocene?

In 2021, the Royal Academy approved the inclusion of the term “Anthropocene” in the dictionary, defined as “a period of time: the most recent of the Quaternary period, from the mid- to late-20th century”. It extends to today and is characterized by global and synchronous modification of natural systems by human action. If the idea of ​​it as an era eventually ends, then for once in his life academia went too far. But the Anthropocene is still a phenomenon that should be in the dictionary. To be rigorous, we simply have to remove the word “era” from the definition.

If the process stops here, the Anthropocene will remain a perfectly valid concept and no one doubts its massive impact on humans in recent decades.

If the process stops here, Asier Hilario argues, “The Anthropocene will remain a completely valid concept and no one questions the widespread impact of humans in recent decades. This is an undoubted event, but there is no unanimity in the geological community on whether to consider it a new milestone in the history of the Earth. We talk about human scale; “Earth’s history is another dimension.”