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

USD -
AED 3.672502
AFN 64.492811
ALL 79.750205
AMD 363.683912
ANG 1.790365
AOA 917.000227
ARS 1514.250803
AUD 1.405047
AWG 1.8025
AZN 1.680717
BAM 1.704921
BBD 2.015858
BDT 122.799983
BGN 1.683441
BHD 0.377309
BIF 3006.159305
BMD 1
BND 1.276497
BOB 9.827834
BRL 5.111603
BSD 1.000902
BTN 95.846319
BWP 13.583363
BYN 3.017728
BYR 19600
BZD 2.012981
CAD 1.402855
CDF 2309.99992
CHF 0.82117
CLF 0.023994
CLP 947.400406
CNY 6.695399
CNH 6.69679
COP 3203.92
CRC 447.749483
CUC 1
CUP 26.5
CVE 96.120821
CZK 21.215994
DJF 178.230338
DKK 6.520043
DOP 59.054809
DZD 133.647026
EGP 51.921047
ERN 15
ETB 163.444079
EUR 0.87221
FJD 2.23815
FKP 0.747949
GBP 0.74765
GEL 2.594994
GGP 0.747949
GHS 11.518982
GIP 0.747949
GMD 73.484438
GNF 8798.144822
GTQ 7.63806
GYD 209.344898
HKD 7.844202
HNL 26.92992
HRK 6.569202
HTG 130.812686
HUF 315.578979
IDR 17866
ILS 3.015955
IMP 0.747949
INR 95.79595
IQD 1310.5
IRR 1374850.000255
ISK 120.540294
JEP 0.747949
JMD 157.741027
JOD 0.708997
JPY 157.612501
KES 129.509619
KGS 87.449499
KHR 4055.603262
KMF 430.000492
KPW 900.000318
KRW 1357.990272
KWD 0.30868
KYD 0.834049
KZT 449.063035
LAK 22420.895249
LBP 89627.698759
LKR 330.838539
LRD 173.147757
LSL 16.260151
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 6.375457
MAD 9.537462
MDL 17.579802
MGA 4394.999802
MKD 53.632916
MMK 2099.019807
MNT 3596.806502
MOP 8.087347
MRU 40.225095
MUR 47.659768
MVR 15.460072
MWK 1735.442448
MXN 17.229705
MYR 4.076298
MZN 63.898585
NAD 16.285706
NGN 1324.402424
NIO 36.674989
NOK 9.434475
NPR 153.352455
NZD 1.74306
OMR 0.384507
PAB 1.000741
PEN 3.378372
PGK 4.447503
PHP 62.695504
PKR 277.363009
PLN 3.79073
PYG 5956.994216
QAR 3.658022
RON 4.590897
RSD 102.310972
RUB 83.747498
RWF 1472.253582
SAR 3.755168
SBD 8.026013
SCR 13.777917
SDG 601.498035
SEK 9.839565
SGD 1.27575
SHP 0.74758
SLE 24.650063
SLL 20969.491881
SOS 571.487652
SRD 37.710496
STD 20697.981008
STN 21.7
SVC 8.757209
SYP 13002.000254
SZL 16.249882
THB 33.266499
TJS 9.233036
TMT 3.5
TND 2.954011
TOP 2.40776
TRY 48.819901
TTD 6.800894
TWD 31.738499
TZS 2652.44987
UAH 44.807225
UGX 3933.225821
UYU 40.216031
UZS 11800.000084
VES 851.3413
VND 26014.5
VUV 118.301728
WST 2.751033
XAF 572.13219
XAG 0.015292
XAU 0.000232
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.803837
XDR 0.707052
XOF 572.13219
XPF 104.499765
YER 236.550036
ZAR 16.26848
ZMK 9001.202326
ZMW 19.542219
ZWL 321.999592
SSP 5712.529845
MXV 1.952872
  • RBGPF

    0.0000

    67.95

    0%

  • RYCEF

    0.4600

    19.7

    +2.34%

  • BTI

    -0.0800

    55.75

    -0.14%

  • AZN

    2.0200

    168.1

    +1.2%

  • NGG

    -0.1200

    76.68

    -0.16%

  • CMSC

    -0.0400

    20.67

    -0.19%

  • RELX

    0.0000

    33.41

    0%

  • BCE

    -0.0700

    21.99

    -0.32%

  • RIO

    -0.3300

    97.04

    -0.34%

  • GSK

    0.8600

    51.08

    +1.68%

  • VOD

    0.0700

    17.02

    +0.41%

  • BCC

    -0.0300

    75.66

    -0.04%

  • BP

    -1.4200

    43.16

    -3.29%

  • CMSD

    0.0900

    20.54

    +0.44%

  • JRI

    -0.0300

    11.52

    -0.26%

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