Scientists have voted on the site they believe should serve as the official birthplace of a new geological epoch dominated by humanity’s impact on the environment.
Geologists have been debating for years whether there is enough evidence to show that activities such as nuclear weapons testing, burning fossil fuels, overfishing and dumping plastic have shifted the planet into a new epoch, known as the Anthropocene. If officially adopted, it would mark an end to the past 11,650 years or so of the Holocene, when temperatures have been stable enough for humanity to flourish.
“It’s been a time of a fairly pleasant environment for humans to live in,” said Colin Waters of the University of Leicester. “It’s why our civilisation has developed where it has. The Anthropocene represents a fundamental change in the environment.”
Waters is secretary of the Anthropocene Working Group, a body of 34 geologists tasked with providing enough scientific literature for the ultimate arbiter of geological timescales, the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), to decide whether the Anthropocene should be formally adopted. Waters and his colleagues have selected a shortlist of sites around the world and will eventually put forward a single one for consideration as the “golden spike” that marks the start of the Anthropocene.
Known as global boundary stratotype section and points (GSSP), these sites separate geological periods, such as the cliff face near El Kef in Tunisia that marks the end of the Cretaceous 66 million years ago. Nine sites that have captured evidence of human activity are still in the running, including a Canadian lake that contains microplastics; coral reefs in Australia and Mexico that have trapped chemicals; Poland’s Sudetes mountains, whose peat bogs have soaked up particles from burning coal; and a Japanese bay whose marine sediment holds a record of nuclear weapons testing.
Advertisement
Voting closed on December 17 and the golden-spike site will be revealed later this year.
But not all geologists want to adopt the Anthropocene formally. Some feel it should be considered an ongoing event, while others think major shifts were under way before the 1950s, the era’s likely starting point. There is no guarantee the ICS will adopt the term. “If it’s the quality of the GSSP site, that’s one thing,” said Waters. “Is it more data we need, or a different site? If it’s rejected because people don’t want the Anthropocene full-stop, that’s going to be harder to convince people.”
