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

EUR -
AED 4.233412
AFN 75.493281
ALL 93.476873
AMD 423.012424
AOA 1058.078854
ARS 1724.84304
AUD 1.637146
AWG 2.074665
AZN 1.9613
BAM 1.957195
BBD 2.320614
BDT 142.631679
BHD 0.434585
BIF 3450.283135
BMD 1.152592
BND 1.478454
BOB 13.993612
BRL 5.923142
BSD 1.152201
BTN 109.959957
BWP 15.66817
BYN 3.395921
BYR 22590.796538
BZD 2.317352
CAD 1.62202
CDF 2604.856784
CHF 0.933478
CLF 0.026717
CLP 1054.90939
CNY 7.784085
CNH 7.778005
COP 3695.289544
CRC 522.463388
CUC 1.152592
CUP 30.543679
CVE 110.821967
CZK 24.174802
DJF 204.839013
DKK 7.475214
DOP 67.309719
DZD 153.225447
EGP 57.834277
ERN 17.288875
ETB 184.242088
FJD 2.549475
FKP 0.857957
GBP 0.857355
GEL 3.014012
GGP 0.857957
GHS 13.502625
GIP 0.857957
GMD 85.292198
GNF 10125.518143
GTQ 8.788265
GYD 241.218821
HKD 9.04041
HNL 30.958679
HRK 7.534952
HTG 150.646086
HUF 361.27813
IDR 20702.851399
ILS 3.471399
IMP 0.857957
INR 109.608412
IQD 1509.895075
IRR 1584957.60632
ISK 141.80319
JEP 0.857957
JMD 182.179872
JOD 0.817187
JPY 181.67259
KES 149.141517
KGS 100.79462
KHR 4667.996734
KMF 493.309394
KRW 1646.00506
KWD 0.356499
KYD 0.960164
KZT 542.785168
LAK 26048.57164
LBP 103214.582979
LKR 386.855782
LRD 208.936033
LSL 19.052185
LTL 3.403304
LVL 0.697191
LYD 7.33626
MAD 10.744475
MDL 20.168941
MGA 4950.381183
MKD 61.573895
MMK 2420.05814
MNT 4131.233505
MOP 9.308534
MRU 46.230476
MUR 53.594212
MVR 17.818945
MWK 2002.051424
MXN 19.906036
MYR 4.721703
MZN 73.650705
NAD 19.051931
NGN 1571.305274
NIO 42.400226
NOK 11.00657
NPR 175.938423
NZD 1.956749
OMR 0.443186
PAB 1.152221
PEN 3.912473
PGK 5.09395
PHP 70.316161
PKR 320.218844
PLN 4.297288
PYG 6869.927239
QAR 4.202061
RON 5.250283
RSD 117.347682
RUB 92.924497
RWF 1692.004557
SAR 4.315567
SBD 9.302748
SCR 15.433387
SDG 692.133809
SEK 10.981069
SGD 1.477876
SLE 28.181113
SOS 658.46941
SRD 43.67285
STD 23856.320291
STN 24.89598
SVC 10.082187
SZL 19.052529
THB 38.341538
TJS 10.634743
TMT 4.034071
TND 3.389771
TRY 54.80355
TTD 7.822577
TWD 37.357224
TZS 3060.128502
UAH 51.521028
UGX 4315.001205
USD 1.152592
UYU 46.423296
UZS 13847.236438
VES 848.482424
VND 30271.091065
VUV 137.324159
WST 3.149129
XAF 656.424953
XAG 0.019291
XAU 0.000282
XCD 3.114936
XCG 2.07658
XDR 0.817312
XOF 654.099666
XPF 119.331742
YER 274.773117
ZAR 18.891666
ZMK 10374.708657
ZMW 21.802137
ZWL 371.134044
  • CMSD

    0.0000

    22.02

    0%

  • RIO

    3.1100

    99.01

    +3.14%

  • NGG

    0.5600

    80.42

    +0.7%

  • BCE

    0.2100

    22

    +0.95%

  • JRI

    -0.1000

    12.72

    -0.79%

  • BCC

    3.4600

    86.49

    +4%

  • GSK

    0.0200

    51.53

    +0.04%

  • CMSC

    0.0300

    21.79

    +0.14%

  • BTI

    -0.4400

    59.12

    -0.74%

  • AZN

    -2.3500

    155.62

    -1.51%

  • RYCEF

    0.1500

    20.35

    +0.74%

  • RBGPF

    3.9500

    69.95

    +5.65%

  • RELX

    0.6400

    36.8

    +1.74%

  • BP

    -1.8200

    42.44

    -4.29%

  • VOD

    0.0800

    15.69

    +0.51%

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.

(K.Müller--BBZ)