Guest “Zombie Murder” by David Middleton
Geology says the Anthropocene is a schist horst…
March 20, 2024
Anthropocene
In 2001, the atmospheric chemist, Paul Crutzen, proposed that human activities have affected the natural environment to such an extent that we can leave the natural stable conditions of the Holocene and move to a new interval called the Anthropocene. In response to this suggestion, the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) was established in 2009 at the initiative of Phil Gibbard (PLG: chairman of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy; SQS). The task of the Working Group is to examine the evidence of human-induced climate change as reflected in the recent geological record, and to determine whether this is compelling enough for new stratigraphic units to be included in the Geological Time Scale (GTS) and, if so, in rank what. The Working Group, initially led by Jan Zalasiewicz (JAZ) and finally by Colin Waters (CW), deliberated for 15 years before submitting its report to SQS at the end of October 2023.
(…)
Following the standard ICS procedure, it is expected that there will be 30 days for the discussion of the AWG proposal, and 30 days for the vote. Due to the possibility of a conflict of interest, JAZ and MAH withdrew from the administration of the election process (although both participated in the discussion), and the discussion and election were conducted by the vice-chairs 1 Professor Liping Zhou (Beijing University: LPZ ) and Professor Adele Bertini (University of Firenze: AB ), and which ensures that the process is fully compliant with ICS rules. However, when the discussion period ended and the Secretary moved to vote, both JAZ and MAH argued that the discussion period was not long enough and additional information in the Anthropocene proposal was omitted. This did not find favor with a substantial number of SQS members who wished to proceed to the ballot. However, in order to meet the request for more time, LPZ and AB agreed to extend the discussion period, which was originally due to end at the end of December, until the end of January. Voting finally began on February 4, despite further objections from JAZ and MAH based on their view that sufficient time was not allowed for discussion. It ends on March 4 where the results are announced.
The result was a decisive rejection of the Anthropocene proposal: 4 votes in favor; 12 votes against; and 3 abstentions. Three members did not vote, including JAZ and MAH, who then started a campaign to question the legitimacy of the vote on procedural grounds and alleged violations of the ICS statute. It is important to emphasize that there is no question of impropriety against LPZ or AB, both of whom acted with complete integrity during the difficult process and who performed their duties fully in accordance with the statutory requirements of the ICS. Also the integrity of SQS members can be questioned. All those involved in the process are geological scientists of the highest caliber, from different countries, and with extensive expertise
Quaternary stratigraphy and chronology. It is clear from the comments made during the discussion period that many are not convinced by the arguments in the AWG proposal, and this misgiving is clearly reflected in the decisive nature of the voting results.The SQS vote has been recognized as valid by the ICS Executive, and the recognition was almost unanimously supported (15 yes, 1 abstention, 1 conflict of interest) by the seventeen IUGS subcommission chairmen, who are ICS voting members. . Although the proposal was categorically rejected, the AWG has performed an important service for the scientific community by collecting a large amount of data on human impacts on global systems, and this database will be an important reference source in the future. In addition, the Anthropocene as a concept will continue to be used not only by Earth and environmental scientists, but also by social scientists, politicians and economists, as well as by the general public. As such, it will remain an invaluable descriptor of human-environment interactions. But it will not be recognized as a formal geological term but will be more usefully used informally in future discussions of anthropogenic impacts on the climate system and the Earth’s environment.
(…)
International Union of Geological Sciences
The PNAS paper cited in the I effing love science article features this graphic:
OK… Anthropocene: 1940-1980 RIP.
Next?
Reference
Kuwae M, Yokoyama Y, Tims S, Froehlich M, Fifield LK, Aze T, Tsugeki N, Doi H, Saito Y. Towards determining the beginning of the Anthropocene using the rapid increase in the anthropogenic fingerprint in the global geological archive. Proc Natl Acad Sci US A. 2024 Oct 8;121(41):e2313098121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2313098121. Epub 2024 Sep 23. PMID: 39312679.
Related
