The Fort Worth Press - No 'human era' in Earth's geological history, scientists say

USD -
AED 3.673039
AFN 69.000382
ALL 89.101678
AMD 387.749826
ANG 1.804889
AOA 928.475981
ARS 962.7414
AUD 1.46872
AWG 1.8
AZN 1.710825
BAM 1.753412
BBD 2.022028
BDT 119.677429
BGN 1.76065
BHD 0.376814
BIF 2894
BMD 1
BND 1.293151
BOB 6.920294
BRL 5.425499
BSD 1.001511
BTN 83.756981
BWP 13.175564
BYN 3.277435
BYR 19600
BZD 2.018612
CAD 1.356395
CDF 2871.000085
CHF 0.84791
CLF 0.033735
CLP 930.859741
CNY 7.067977
CNH 7.07284
COP 4165.25
CRC 518.757564
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 99.250254
CZK 22.491396
DJF 177.72004
DKK 6.684975
DOP 60.203552
DZD 132.341911
EGP 48.534057
ERN 15
ETB 117.497487
EUR 0.896196
FJD 2.2003
FKP 0.761559
GBP 0.753255
GEL 2.729512
GGP 0.761559
GHS 15.701624
GIP 0.761559
GMD 68.504127
GNF 8652.498216
GTQ 7.741513
GYD 209.457218
HKD 7.793945
HNL 24.949828
HRK 6.799011
HTG 131.977784
HUF 353.230215
IDR 15202
ILS 3.750095
IMP 0.761559
INR 83.61045
IQD 1310
IRR 42092.504652
ISK 136.490277
JEP 0.761559
JMD 157.339131
JOD 0.708698
JPY 142.851991
KES 128.999539
KGS 84.275012
KHR 4069.999863
KMF 441.350282
KPW 899.999433
KRW 1329.045033
KWD 0.30494
KYD 0.834476
KZT 479.593026
LAK 22085.000237
LBP 89268.117889
LKR 304.846178
LRD 194.249486
LSL 17.502706
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 4.745018
MAD 9.695018
MDL 17.473892
MGA 4555.000175
MKD 55.200186
MMK 3247.960992
MNT 3397.999955
MOP 8.038636
MRU 39.715032
MUR 45.869795
MVR 15.36002
MWK 1736.00021
MXN 19.317199
MYR 4.218972
MZN 63.849846
NAD 17.499915
NGN 1640.319638
NIO 36.769417
NOK 10.503135
NPR 134.027245
NZD 1.604145
OMR 0.384961
PAB 1.001511
PEN 3.745005
PGK 3.914203
PHP 55.562997
PKR 278.098209
PLN 3.83075
PYG 7817.718069
QAR 3.64025
RON 4.457506
RSD 104.909468
RUB 92.170071
RWF 1342
SAR 3.752548
SBD 8.306937
SCR 13.623023
SDG 601.497767
SEK 10.16481
SGD 1.292595
SHP 0.761559
SLE 22.847303
SLL 20969.494858
SOS 570.999811
SRD 29.852962
STD 20697.981008
SVC 8.762579
SYP 2512.529936
SZL 17.503112
THB 33.1435
TJS 10.644256
TMT 3.5
TND 3.024035
TOP 2.3498
TRY 34.084935
TTD 6.806508
TWD 31.924966
TZS 2724.999896
UAH 41.500415
UGX 3718.795247
UYU 41.141269
UZS 12735.000116
VEF 3622552.534434
VES 36.755455
VND 24580
VUV 118.722009
WST 2.797463
XAF 588.099177
XAG 0.032507
XAU 0.000387
XCD 2.70255
XDR 0.742235
XOF 587.50055
XPF 107.297095
YER 250.324957
ZAR 17.510415
ZMK 9001.198401
ZMW 26.062595
ZWL 321.999592
  • BCC

    7.6300

    144.69

    +5.27%

  • CMSD

    0.0300

    25.01

    +0.12%

  • BCE

    -0.4200

    35.19

    -1.19%

  • GSK

    -0.8100

    41.62

    -1.95%

  • RIO

    2.2700

    65.18

    +3.48%

  • BTI

    -0.3100

    37.57

    -0.83%

  • RBGPF

    3.5000

    60.5

    +5.79%

  • SCS

    -0.8000

    13.31

    -6.01%

  • JRI

    -0.0400

    13.4

    -0.3%

  • NGG

    -1.2200

    68.83

    -1.77%

  • CMSC

    0.0650

    25.12

    +0.26%

  • BP

    0.3300

    32.76

    +1.01%

  • RYCEF

    0.4000

    6.95

    +5.76%

  • VOD

    -0.1700

    10.06

    -1.69%

  • RELX

    0.7600

    48.13

    +1.58%

  • AZN

    0.3200

    78.9

    +0.41%

No 'human era' in Earth's geological history, scientists say
No 'human era' in Earth's geological history, scientists say / Photo: © 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.

W.Matthews--TFWP