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

USD -
AED 3.672504
AFN 65.000368
ALL 81.910403
AMD 376.168126
ANG 1.79008
AOA 917.000367
ARS 1431.790402
AUD 1.425923
AWG 1.8025
AZN 1.70397
BAM 1.654023
BBD 2.008288
BDT 121.941731
BGN 1.67937
BHD 0.375999
BIF 2954.881813
BMD 1
BND 1.269737
BOB 6.889932
BRL 5.217404
BSD 0.997082
BTN 90.316715
BWP 13.200558
BYN 2.864561
BYR 19600
BZD 2.005328
CAD 1.36855
CDF 2200.000362
CHF 0.77566
CLF 0.021803
CLP 860.890396
CNY 6.93895
CNH 6.929815
COP 3684.65
CRC 494.312656
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 93.82504
CZK 20.504104
DJF 177.555076
DKK 6.322204
DOP 62.928665
DZD 129.553047
EGP 46.73094
ERN 15
ETB 155.0074
EUR 0.846204
FJD 2.209504
FKP 0.735067
GBP 0.734457
GEL 2.69504
GGP 0.735067
GHS 10.957757
GIP 0.735067
GMD 73.000355
GNF 8752.167111
GTQ 7.647681
GYD 208.609244
HKD 7.81385
HNL 26.45504
HRK 6.376104
HTG 130.618631
HUF 319.703831
IDR 16855.5
ILS 3.110675
IMP 0.735067
INR 90.57645
IQD 1310.5
IRR 42125.000158
ISK 122.710386
JEP 0.735067
JMD 156.057339
JOD 0.70904
JPY 157.200504
KES 128.622775
KGS 87.450384
KHR 4033.00035
KMF 419.00035
KPW 900.021111
KRW 1463.803789
KWD 0.30721
KYD 0.830902
KZT 493.331642
LAK 21426.698803
LBP 89293.839063
LKR 308.47816
LRD 187.449786
LSL 16.086092
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 6.314009
MAD 9.185039
MDL 17.000296
MGA 4426.402808
MKD 52.129054
MMK 2100.115486
MNT 3570.277081
MOP 8.023933
MRU 39.850379
MUR 46.060378
MVR 15.450378
MWK 1737.000345
MXN 17.263604
MYR 3.947504
MZN 63.750377
NAD 16.086092
NGN 1366.980377
NIO 36.694998
NOK 9.690604
NPR 144.506744
NZD 1.661958
OMR 0.383441
PAB 0.997082
PEN 3.367504
PGK 4.275868
PHP 58.511038
PKR 278.812127
PLN 3.56949
PYG 6588.016407
QAR 3.64135
RON 4.310404
RSD 99.553038
RUB 76.792845
RWF 1455.283522
SAR 3.749738
SBD 8.058149
SCR 13.675619
SDG 601.503676
SEK 9.023204
SGD 1.272904
SHP 0.750259
SLE 24.450371
SLL 20969.499267
SOS 568.818978
SRD 37.818038
STD 20697.981008
STN 20.719692
SVC 8.724259
SYP 11059.574895
SZL 16.08271
THB 31.535038
TJS 9.342721
TMT 3.505
TND 2.847504
TOP 2.40776
TRY 43.612504
TTD 6.752083
TWD 31.590367
TZS 2577.445135
UAH 42.828111
UGX 3547.71872
UYU 38.538627
UZS 12244.069517
VES 377.985125
VND 25950
VUV 119.620171
WST 2.730723
XAF 554.743964
XAG 0.012866
XAU 0.000202
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.797032
XDR 0.689923
XOF 554.743964
XPF 101.703591
YER 238.403589
ZAR 16.04457
ZMK 9001.203584
ZMW 18.570764
ZWL 321.999592
  • SCS

    0.0200

    16.14

    +0.12%

  • RBGPF

    0.1000

    82.5

    +0.12%

  • GSK

    1.0600

    60.23

    +1.76%

  • NGG

    1.1700

    88.06

    +1.33%

  • RYCEF

    0.2600

    16.88

    +1.54%

  • CMSC

    -0.0400

    23.51

    -0.17%

  • BCE

    -0.4900

    25.08

    -1.95%

  • BP

    0.8400

    39.01

    +2.15%

  • BTI

    0.8400

    62.8

    +1.34%

  • RELX

    -0.7100

    29.38

    -2.42%

  • RIO

    2.2900

    93.41

    +2.45%

  • JRI

    0.0900

    12.97

    +0.69%

  • VOD

    0.4900

    15.11

    +3.24%

  • CMSD

    0.0600

    23.95

    +0.25%

  • BCC

    1.8700

    91.03

    +2.05%

  • AZN

    5.8700

    193.03

    +3.04%

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