The China Mail - No 'human era' in Earth's geological history, scientists say

USD -
AED 3.672498
AFN 63.500465
ALL 83.283733
AMD 367.003219
ANG 1.790403
AOA 917.000184
ARS 1471.035205
AUD 1.449338
AWG 1.80125
AZN 1.689175
BAM 1.724577
BBD 2.013888
BDT 122.992813
BGN 1.69088
BHD 0.377147
BIF 2984.81535
BMD 1
BND 1.298984
BOB 6.909809
BRL 5.201836
BSD 0.999934
BTN 94.624111
BWP 13.680173
BYN 2.818068
BYR 19600
BZD 2.01104
CAD 1.423225
CDF 2268.99975
CHF 0.81263
CLF 0.023263
CLP 915.590329
CNY 6.790496
CNH 6.81352
COP 3428.35
CRC 455.186766
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 97.22259
CZK 21.37625
DJF 178.061717
DKK 6.592015
DOP 58.613453
DZD 133.528416
EGP 49.636698
ERN 15
ETB 161.211774
EUR 0.88182
FJD 2.24825
FKP 0.758197
GBP 0.759805
GEL 2.645016
GGP 0.758197
GHS 11.199781
GIP 0.758197
GMD 72.49805
GNF 8761.518452
GTQ 7.627362
GYD 209.162776
HKD 7.840295
HNL 26.755726
HRK 6.640898
HTG 130.744947
HUF 314.087979
IDR 17976
ILS 2.984749
IMP 0.758197
INR 94.412
IQD 1309.878094
IRR 1375049.999798
ISK 126.810208
JEP 0.758197
JMD 157.488647
JOD 0.708978
JPY 161.677495
KES 129.590162
KGS 87.449821
KHR 4017.494974
KMF 430.999856
KPW 900.00035
KRW 1546.34502
KWD 0.30947
KYD 0.833297
KZT 486.623047
LAK 21948.961236
LBP 89556.012134
LKR 337.341005
LRD 182.134827
LSL 16.623945
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 6.430933
MAD 9.401479
MDL 17.709096
MGA 4177.101337
MKD 54.353625
MMK 2099.539901
MNT 3580.066416
MOP 8.076099
MRU 39.982188
MUR 48.209966
MVR 15.45971
MWK 1733.881812
MXN 17.6195
MYR 4.137977
MZN 63.902143
NAD 16.623945
NGN 1372.679674
NIO 36.797319
NOK 9.83835
NPR 151.394749
NZD 1.772154
OMR 0.384501
PAB 0.999965
PEN 3.391297
PGK 4.386951
PHP 61.5525
PKR 278.100478
PLN 3.78105
PYG 6099.351442
QAR 3.635217
RON 4.618803
RSD 103.50701
RUB 74.893431
RWF 1468.89467
SAR 3.754889
SBD 8.065041
SCR 13.65272
SDG 600.499082
SEK 9.77475
SGD 1.29826
SHP 0.746601
SLE 24.750204
SLL 20969.503664
SOS 571.478959
SRD 37.482989
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.603509
SVC 8.749173
SYP 110.532098
SZL 16.621989
THB 33.430499
TJS 9.284423
TMT 3.51
TND 2.972467
TOP 2.40776
TRY 46.49775
TTD 6.780184
TWD 31.733017
TZS 2620.502978
UAH 44.88455
UGX 3689.350352
UYU 39.918699
UZS 12024.108178
VES 616.865275
VND 26335
VUV 118.798432
WST 2.761642
XAF 578.424923
XAG 0.016838
XAU 0.000248
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.802141
XDR 0.716966
XOF 578.417273
XPF 105.162912
YER 238.649503
ZAR 16.61355
ZMK 9001.202706
ZMW 18.024056
ZWL 321.999592
  • BCC

    -0.7400

    71.8

    -1.03%

  • JRI

    -0.0200

    12.63

    -0.16%

  • CMSC

    -0.0500

    22.11

    -0.23%

  • CMSD

    -0.1200

    21.96

    -0.55%

  • BP

    -0.4500

    39.33

    -1.14%

  • NGG

    0.6000

    81.57

    +0.74%

  • BCE

    0.3900

    23.04

    +1.69%

  • GSK

    1.3300

    52.07

    +2.55%

  • RIO

    -3.7800

    95.58

    -3.95%

  • BTI

    1.8400

    60.74

    +3.03%

  • RBGPF

    0.9600

    61.3

    +1.57%

  • RYCEF

    -0.4700

    18.16

    -2.59%

  • VOD

    -0.0700

    14.05

    -0.5%

  • AZN

    4.5900

    181.02

    +2.54%

  • RELX

    0.3800

    31.21

    +1.22%

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.

K.Lam--ThChM