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

USD -
AED 3.67295
AFN 69.000368
ALL 83.803989
AMD 383.103986
ANG 1.789783
AOA 917.000367
ARS 1297.536634
AUD 1.537304
AWG 1.80075
AZN 1.70397
BAM 1.673054
BBD 2.018392
BDT 121.454234
BGN 1.67146
BHD 0.376789
BIF 2960
BMD 1
BND 1.281694
BOB 6.907525
BRL 5.400904
BSD 0.999658
BTN 87.426861
BWP 13.378101
BYN 3.334902
BYR 19600
BZD 2.00793
CAD 1.38195
CDF 2895.000362
CHF 0.806593
CLF 0.024552
CLP 963.170396
CNY 7.182104
CNH 7.188904
COP 4016
CRC 505.132592
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 94.903894
CZK 20.904404
DJF 177.720393
DKK 6.37675
DOP 61.72504
DZD 129.567223
EGP 48.265049
ERN 15
ETB 141.150392
EUR 0.85425
FJD 2.255904
FKP 0.737351
GBP 0.73749
GEL 2.690391
GGP 0.737351
GHS 10.65039
GIP 0.737351
GMD 72.503851
GNF 8677.503848
GTQ 7.667237
GYD 209.056342
HKD 7.82575
HNL 26.403838
HRK 6.43704
HTG 130.804106
HUF 337.803831
IDR 16203
ILS 3.377065
IMP 0.737351
INR 87.51385
IQD 1310
IRR 42112.503816
ISK 122.380386
JEP 0.737351
JMD 159.957228
JOD 0.70904
JPY 147.12504
KES 129.503801
KGS 87.378804
KHR 4005.00035
KMF 420.503794
KPW 900.025178
KRW 1388.970383
KWD 0.30545
KYD 0.83302
KZT 541.497006
LAK 21602.503779
LBP 89195.979899
LKR 300.889649
LRD 201.503772
LSL 17.590381
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 5.415039
MAD 9.009504
MDL 16.668948
MGA 4440.000347
MKD 52.634731
MMK 2098.603064
MNT 3597.89485
MOP 8.055945
MRU 39.950379
MUR 45.580378
MVR 15.410378
MWK 1735.000345
MXN 18.74305
MYR 4.213039
MZN 63.903729
NAD 17.590377
NGN 1532.720377
NIO 36.760377
NOK 10.19984
NPR 139.882806
NZD 1.688633
OMR 0.384284
PAB 0.999645
PEN 3.560375
PGK 4.140375
PHP 56.553038
PKR 282.050374
PLN 3.639079
PYG 7320.786997
QAR 3.640604
RON 4.325804
RSD 100.223038
RUB 80.100397
RWF 1445
SAR 3.752253
SBD 8.223773
SCR 14.145454
SDG 600.503676
SEK 9.55527
SGD 1.280704
SHP 0.785843
SLE 23.303667
SLL 20969.49797
SOS 571.503662
SRD 37.56037
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.3
SVC 8.746792
SYP 13002.014293
SZL 17.590369
THB 32.440369
TJS 9.321608
TMT 3.51
TND 2.88425
TOP 2.342104
TRY 40.873025
TTD 6.782633
TWD 30.032504
TZS 2612.503628
UAH 41.258597
UGX 3558.597092
UYU 39.991446
UZS 12550.000334
VES 135.47035
VND 26270
VUV 119.201287
WST 2.766305
XAF 561.119404
XAG 0.026323
XAU 0.0003
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.801625
XDR 0.702337
XOF 561.000332
XPF 102.375037
YER 240.275037
ZAR 17.59525
ZMK 9001.203584
ZMW 23.166512
ZWL 321.999592
  • JRI

    0.0835

    13.36

    +0.62%

  • SCS

    -0.0500

    16.15

    -0.31%

  • CMSD

    0.0505

    23.34

    +0.22%

  • BCC

    -0.6300

    85.99

    -0.73%

  • GSK

    0.5581

    39.36

    +1.42%

  • BCE

    0.2400

    25.61

    +0.94%

  • RBGPF

    2.8400

    75.92

    +3.74%

  • NGG

    -0.1300

    71.43

    -0.18%

  • CMSC

    0.0300

    23.12

    +0.13%

  • RIO

    0.2000

    61.24

    +0.33%

  • AZN

    0.7000

    79.17

    +0.88%

  • BTI

    -0.2700

    57.15

    -0.47%

  • BP

    0.1892

    34.33

    +0.55%

  • RYCEF

    -0.2100

    14.71

    -1.43%

  • VOD

    0.0300

    11.67

    +0.26%

  • RELX

    0.2700

    47.96

    +0.56%

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