Hubbry Logo
Anthropocene Working GroupAnthropocene Working GroupMain
Open search
Anthropocene Working Group
Community hub
Anthropocene Working Group
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Anthropocene Working Group
Anthropocene Working Group
Anthropocene Working Group
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) is an interdisciplinary research group dedicated to the study of the Anthropocene as a geological time unit. It was established in 2009 as part of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS), a constituent body of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS). As of 2021, the research group features 37 members, with the physical geographer Simon Turner as Secretary and the geologist Colin Neil Waters as chair of the group. The late Nobel Prize-winning Paul Crutzen, who popularized the word 'Anthropocene' in 2000, had also been a member of the group until he died on January 28, 2021. The main goal of the AWG is providing scientific evidence robust enough for the Anthropocene to be formally ratified by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) as an epoch within the Geologic time scale.[1]

History

[edit]

Prior to the establishment of the Anthropocene Working Group in 2009, no research program dedicated to the formalization of the Anthropocene in the geologic time scale existed. The idea of naming the current epoch 'Anthropocene' rather than using its formal time unit, the Holocene, became popular after Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer published in May 2000 an article on the IGBP Global Change Newsletter called "The 'Anthropocene'."[2] Later in 2002, Crutzen published a commentary on Nature titled "Geology of Mankind" where he further stressed the idea "to assign the term ‘Anthropocene’ to the present, in many ways human-dominated, geological epoch, supplementing the Holocene,"[3] with starting date in the late 18th century (at the onset of the Industrial Revolution). Soon after Paul Crutzen published his influential articles, a debate over the beginning of the Anthropocene took place between supporters of the Early Anthropocene Hypothesis, a thesis originally promoted in 2003 by the palaeoclimatologist William Ruddiman dating the beginning of the Anthropocene as far back as the Neolithic Revolution,[4] and supporters of more recent starting dates, from European Colonization of the Americas,[5][6][7] to the late 18th century, to the post-WWII Great Acceleration.[8][9]

The discussion over the beginning of the Anthropocene was crucial for the 'stratigraphic turn'[10] that the Anthropocene debate took in the following years. In February 2008, Jan Zalasiewicz and other members of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London published a paper that considered the possibility to "amplify and extend the discussion of the effects referred to by Crutzen and then apply the same criteria used to set up new epochs to ask whether there really is justification or need for a new term, and if so, where and how its boundary might be placed."[11] The article raised the possibility of studying the Anthropocene as a discrete geological unit—a possibility that later led to the establishment of the AWG.

In 2009, the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy established an Anthropocene Working Group to "examine the status, hierarchical level and definition of the Anthropocene as a potential new formal division of the Geological Time Scale."[12] Some authors have labelled this moment as 'stratigraphic turn'[13] or 'geological turn',[14] in that the establishment of the AWG acknowledged the Anthropocene as an object of geological interest in the scientific community. The AWG has been actively publishing ever since then. The first in-person meeting of the AWG took place in October 2014 at Haus der Kulturen der Welt, Berlin (HKW), with several other work meetings at HKW to follow in subsequent years. The AWG became a close collaborator of the HKW's and Max Planck Institute for the History of Science's decade long Anthropocene Project.[15] Within the framework of that project, HKW was able to acquired in 2018 about 850 000 Euros financial support for a systematic assessment of potential candidates for the Anthropocene's Global boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) by the AWG through means of a special appropriation from the German Bundestag. While large parts of the funding sum were dedicated to GSSP research, the AWG was obliged to contribute to HKW's Evidence & Experiment program to publicly share and discuss their research findings.[16][17]

In 2020, Colin Waters, previously secretary of the AWG, became the new chair, replacing the paleobiologist Jan Zalasiewicz who had previously been chair of the AWG from 2009 to 2020, while Simon Turner became the new secretary of the group. In 2024, Jan Zalasiewicz replaced Colin Waters again as chair of the AWG, while Simon Turner remained in his role as secretary of the working group.

Research

[edit]

The Anthropocene Working Group is one of four workings groups part of the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (the other three being the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary working group, Middle/Late Pleistocene boundary working group, and Early/Middle Pleistocene boundary working group).[18] The AWG members (including Paul Crutzen, who was awarded the Nobel prize for chemistry in 1995 for his researcher on ozone depletion; John McNeill, a pioneering researcher in the field of environmental history; and Naomi Oreskes, author of the book Merchants of Doubt) have diverse disciplinary backgrounds, ranging from international law, archaeology, and history to philosophy, natural science, and geography. Since no direct funding supports the research program, communication among members happens mostly through email, whereas meetings are usually founded by hosting institutions.

As for most of the epochs in the Phanerozoic (the current Eon, starting 539 million years ago), determining the beginning of the Anthropocene by locating and agreeing upon its lower boundary is a necessary step in its process of formal recognition as a geochronological/chronostratigraphic unit.[19] A lower boundary is defined by locating a GSSP (informally known as 'golden spike') in the stratigraphic section of a stage, the chronostratigraphic taxonomic equivalent of an epoch. Alternatively, if a 'golden spike' cannot be located, a GSSA can be agreed upon, although this methodology is usually implemented for Precambrian boundaries.[20] There is a specific set of rules that a GSSP must fulfill in order to be recognized as a valid primary geologic marker.[21]

A central object of research for the AWG is establishing when, where, and how to locate the lower boundary of the Anthropocene. This means assigning a starting date to the Anthropocene (and an end to the Holocene), locating primary as well as auxiliary markers defining Anthropocene geologic record, and determining the proper methodology to implement in the overall process of formalization (GSSP or GSSA, what proxies to use as markers, etc.). Although debates on the taxonomical level of the Anthropocene in the chronostratigraphic chart / geologic time scale (Stage/Age, Series/Epoch, or System/Period) have occurred, the AWG has been considering the Anthropocene to best fit the requirements to be taxonomically recognized as an epoch.[22]

In January 2014, the Geological Society of London published A Stratigraphical Basis for the Anthropocene,[23] a collection of scientific essays dedicated to assessing and analyzing the anthropogenic signatures defining the Anthropocene, and its requirements to be recognized as a distinct chronostratigraphic unit from the Holocene. The volume constitutes a landmark publication for the AWG, collecting a preliminary body of scientific evidence for the Anthropocene, and establishing research areas and trajectories retraced in the following years.

In February 2019, the AWG published The Anthropocene as a Geological Time Unit: A Guide to the Scientific Evidence and Current Debate. It represents an extensive summary of evidence collected supporting the case of formalization of the Anthropocene as a geological time unit. The synthesis comprehends evidence ranging from stratigraphy, lithostratigraphy, mineralogy, biostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy, to climatology, Earth system science, and archaeology. The monograph also links the Anthropocene to the question concerning anthropogenic climate change, and the role of human technology and the technosphere in impacting the functioning of the Earth system. In the first chapter, the authors also provide a genealogy of the term 'Anthropocene,' and a statement of the role of the AWG as a scientific research program.[1]

In May, 2019, the AWG completed a binding vote determining two major research questions:

  • "Should the Anthropocene be treated as a formal chrono-stratigraphic unit defined by a GSSP?"
  • "Should the primary guide for the base of the Anthropocene be one of the stratigraphic signals around the mid-twentieth century of the Common Era?"

Both questions received a positive response, with 29 votes in favor, 4 votes against, and no abstention (33 votes received out of 34 potential voting members).[24]

On July 11, 2023, the AWG proposed Crawford Lake, Canada as GSSP candidate site of the Anthropocene series in a joint press conference with the Max Planck Society.[25][26]

Media

[edit]

In 2016 seven prominent members of the AWG – Erle Ellis, John McNeill, Eric Odada, Andrew Revkin, Will Steffen, Davor Vidas and Jan Zalasiewicz – were interviewed in the feature documentary Anthropocene which showed on campuses and at film festivals worldwide and helped the term gain public attention. The documentary was the first feature-length film about the new epoch, and was described by Earth.com as one of the top ten documentaries to help raise environmental awareness. While the seven AWG members formed a broad consensus about the Anthropocene's history and the term's significance, they took contrasting views when invited by director Steve Bradshaw to consider the Anthropocene either as a tragedy – with extinctions and upheavals – or as a dark comedy.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Anthropocene Working Group

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) is an international interdisciplinary assembly of geoscientists established in 2009 under the Subcommission on Quaternary (SQS) of the (ICS) to rigorously evaluate stratigraphic evidence for designating the —a proposed geological epoch defined by unprecedented human-driven alterations to Earth's sedimentary record and biota—as a formal chronostratigraphic unit. The AWG's primary mandate involved compiling empirical proxies of anthropogenic signatures, such as from mid-20th-century nuclear testing, , stable carbon isotopes from combustion, and biotic homogenizations, to argue for a distinct geological boundary succeeding the epoch. In 2016, the group issued interim recommendations favoring formalization at the epoch/series rank with a base in the mid-20th century, a position affirmed by an 88% affirmative vote among members in 2019; this culminated in a 2023 proposal nominating Crawford Lake in , , as the Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) due to its varved sediments preserving synchronous global markers from approximately 1952 CE onward. Despite these efforts, the SQS rejected the AWG's proposal on March 26, 2024, in a 12–4 vote (with two abstentions), citing the proposed boundary's excessive recency—which omitted earlier human influences like agriculture and industrialization—as failing to capture the full stratigraphic signal, alongside challenges in demonstrating global synchroneity amid variable local markers. This outcome underscored stratigraphic conservatism, prioritizing long-term geological stability over the rapid, ongoing perturbations emphasized by the AWG, and fueled debates on whether the Anthropocene merits informal usage as an "event" within the Holocene rather than a delimited epoch. The rejection did not negate the group's documented evidence of human-induced stratigraphic novelty but highlighted procedural thresholds for formal adoption, with some members expressing dissent over the vote's binding nature on broader conceptual validity.

Formation and Governance

Establishment in 2009

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) was formally established in by the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS), a body subordinate to the (ICS), to evaluate the proposal of recognizing the as a distinct stratigraphic unit within the Geological Time Scale. The initiative originated from Phil Gibbard, then-chair of the SQS, in response to growing scientific discourse on human-induced geological changes following the term's popularization by Paul Crutzen and Eugene Stoermer in 2000. The group's primary objective from inception was to assemble an international roster of Earth scientists—ideally numbering around 30 to 40 members with expertise in , , and related fields—to rigorously assess stratigraphic evidence for the , including potential boundary markers such as isotopes or residues. Membership emphasized global representation and familiarity with deep-time stratigraphic principles to ensure multidisciplinary scrutiny, avoiding premature endorsement without verifiable geological signals. In its inaugural activities, the AWG issued Newsletter No. 1 in , which outlined its charter: to deliberate on the Anthropocene's formal status, , , and recommendations for submission to the SQS, while explicitly cautioning against non-stratigraphic interpretations that conflate environmental or cultural narratives with geological criteria. This foundational document stressed adherence to ICS protocols, requiring a Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) for any proposed boundary, and positioned the group as an advisory body rather than a authority.

Organizational Structure and Leadership

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) operates as an interdisciplinary task group subordinate to the Subcommission on (SQS), itself a body under the (ICS) of the (IUGS). Established in 2009 to evaluate the Anthropocene's potential status as a formal stratigraphic unit, the AWG functions through consensus-driven deliberations rather than a rigid , with proposals requiring by its parent SQS before advancement to the ICS. Leadership consists of a and , positions that rotate periodically among members to distribute responsibilities. Colin N. Waters, a affiliated with the , serves as , overseeing coordination of research, voting processes, and submissions to the SQS. Simon Turner, a physical geographer at , acts as , managing administrative duties including membership records and communications. Earlier figures, such as palaeobiologist Jan Zalasiewicz, played foundational roles in convening the group and advancing its initial stratigraphic assessments. Membership totals around 34 individuals, predominantly voting members (approximately 27-34 eligible), selected for expertise in fields like , , palaeoecology, and . Voting members, denoted as such in group records, participate in key ballots—such as the decision on formalizing the , which passed 29-4 with approval exceeding 60% ( of 21 required from 34 potential voters). Advisory members provide supplementary input without voting rights, broadening interdisciplinary perspectives. The group's composition emphasizes empirical stratigraphic evidence over advocacy, though critics have noted potential influences from emphases in member selection. Decision-making prioritizes stratigraphic rigor, with formal votes on unit boundaries or hierarchical status demanding >60% support among quorate voting members. Post-submission, the SQS—comprising 22 voting members as of —reviews proposals, as evidenced by its 12-4 rejection (with 3 abstentions) of the AWG's epoch recommendation on March 26, , citing insufficient geological distinction from variability. This structure ensures layered scrutiny but has drawn commentary from AWG leadership on risks of diluting stratigraphic signals amid broader debates.

Relationship to ICS and SQS

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) operated as a formal task group under the Subcommission on (SQS), a body responsible for stratigraphic divisions within the Period. The SQS itself functions as a subcommission of the (ICS), the primary international authority for establishing units of the . This hierarchical structure positioned the AWG to develop proposals for SQS review, with subsequent escalation requiring majority approval from SQS, followed by ICS ratification and final endorsement by the (IUGS). In practice, the AWG's relationship to these bodies emphasized rigorous stratigraphic evaluation, including identification of a Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) to define any proposed boundary. The group's 2016 formal proposal and 2023 GSSP nomination at Crawford Lake, , advanced through AWG consensus but faced procedural scrutiny within SQS, culminating in a March 2024 vote where SQS members rejected formalization by a margin of 12 against, 4 in favor, and 2 abstentions. This decision prevented progression to ICS, highlighting tensions over the proposal's alignment with stratigraphic criteria versus broader environmental signals. Post-rejection, the AWG's formal affiliation as an SQS task group concluded, though its members continued independent stratigraphic research on human impacts. The episode underscored the ICS's emphasis on empirical, boundary-defining evidence over informal epoch concepts, maintaining the as the current pending alternative proposals.

Objectives and Methodology

Core Mandate

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) was tasked with rigorously evaluating the ''—a proposed geological time unit reflecting human dominance over Earth's systems—for potential formalization within the International Chronostratigraphic Chart. Its core remit, as outlined in its inaugural 2009 newsletter, centers on examining the stratigraphic status of the , determining its appropriate hierarchical level (such as or ), and defining its boundaries through empirical geological . This mandate requires applying the International Commission on Stratigraphy's (ICS) criteria for recognizing new units, including a persistent, synchronous global signal in proxy records like sediments, ice cores, and biota that distinguishes it from the preceding Epoch. Central to the AWG's purpose is the identification of a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP), or "," to pinpoint the epoch's base with precision, ensuring it meets standards of and stratigraphic utility across disciplines. The group operates under the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS), committing members to prioritize geoscientific data over interpretive or societal narratives, such as policy implications. This focus underscores a causal emphasis on verifiable anthropogenic markers—like radionuclides from nuclear testing or residues—while assessing whether they override natural variability in the rock record. The AWG's mandate extends to formulating a formal proposal for SQS and ICS ratification, requiring at least 60% approval within the group before advancement. In 2019, it voted 29-4 to designate the as a new beginning around 1950, based on mid-20th-century stratigraphic signals, though this proposal faced subsequent rejection by the SQS in March 2024 due to debates over boundary placement and timescale utility. Despite such outcomes, the group's foundational objective remains the objective stratigraphic appraisal of human impacts as a geological force, independent of broader environmental advocacy.

Stratigraphic Criteria Applied

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) applied standard (ICS) guidelines for chronostratigraphic units, emphasizing a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) to define the epoch's lower boundary through a primary marker that ensures global correlatability, synchroneity, persistence, and stratigraphic distinctiveness. This approach prioritizes physical stratigraphic evidence over numerical age alone, requiring a continuous section with sufficient thickness above and below the boundary for correlation, while accommodating the unique anthropogenic signals absent in prior geological epochs. The group evaluated candidates for markers based on their sharpness in the record, global distribution, and independence from local diachrony, rejecting earlier options like the onset of (~8000 years ago) or (~1800 CE) due to insufficient synchroneity and stratigraphic clarity. As the primary marker, the AWG selected the sharp global upturn in plutonium isotopes (primarily ^{239}Pu and ^{240}Pu) from thermonuclear weapons testing, with the boundary placed at the onset around 1952 CE, coinciding with the "Great Acceleration" in human impacts. This signal, derived from above-ground nuclear detonations peaking in –, provides a precise, anthropogenically unique spike distinguishable from natural backgrounds, offering annual-scale resolution in suitable archives like varved lake sediments. 's selection over alternatives such as radiocarbon shifts or fly ash was justified by its stratigraphic utility: it is globally synchronous within dating uncertainties, persists in strata without significant remobilization, and correlates across diverse environments including lakes, corals, and peatlands. For the GSSP, the AWG proposed Crawford Lake in , , where annually laminated (varved) sediments preserve a complete, undisturbed record of the plutonium signal at ~3.25 meters depth, dated precisely to 1951–1952 CE via ^{210}Pb and varve counting. This site meets ICS criteria for accessibility, stratigraphic continuity (with meters of sediment above and below), and multi-proxy support, including secondary markers like , algal shifts, and spheroidal fly ash particles that reinforce the boundary's global coherence. Auxiliary sections in Beppu Bay (), Sihailongwan Maar Lake (), and Śnieżka peatland () were designated to demonstrate correlatability, ensuring the marker's reliability beyond the primary GSSP. The AWG's framework also required evidence of a trajectory-altering system change, validated through widespread stratigraphic proxies showing synchronous post-1950 divergences in , , and .

Data Sources and Evidence Types

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) draws on stratigraphic archives such as annually laminated lake sediments, marine and terrestrial cores, peat profiles, and polar ice layers to detect globally synchronous anthropogenic signals, ensuring compliance with International Chronostratigraphic Chart criteria for formal geological units. Key sites include Crawford Lake in , , selected for its varved sediments that record sharp mid-20th-century geochemical spikes; Beppu Bay in ; Sihailongwan Maar Lake in ; and Śnieżka peatland in , which collectively provide high-resolution proxies for boundary evaluation. Geochemical evidence predominates, featuring radionuclides like from thermonuclear testing (peaking circa 1963 CE), bomb-derived radiocarbon-14 excursions, and perturbations in carbon, , and phosphorus biogeochemical cycles, all manifesting as abrupt, traceable strata worldwide. Biological signatures encompass palaeontological shifts, including accelerated extinctions, homogenizing biotas via species translocations, and novel ecological assemblages diverging from norms. Material and lithological types include technofossils such as persistent , fly ash spherules from combustion, and novel industrial minerals absent in pre-anthropogenic records. The AWG delineates four categories of material evidence: artificial strata blending natural constituents with human-engineered deposits; humanly modified ground from , , and extraction; legacy sediments accruing from historical land-use changes; and natural geo-deposits incorporating artifacts like fragments or chemical pollutants. These are scrutinized for diachroneity and primacy, with internal voting favoring plastics (three votes) and fly particles (two votes) as potential global markers over alternatives like aluminum or , underscoring a preference for durable, widespread stratigraphic utility tied to the post-1950 "Great Acceleration."

Historical Timeline

Pre-AWG Discussions (2000-2008)

The term "" was first prominently proposed in 2000 by atmospheric chemist during a meeting of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Scientific Committee in , , where he interrupted a discussion on the epoch to assert that humanity had entered a new geological era dominated by human influence. , alongside limnologist Eugene F. Stoermer, elaborated on this in the IGBP Newsletter 41 article "The ''," suggesting the epoch's onset around 1800 with the , evidenced by sharp rises in atmospheric and from fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes. This publication crystallized informal earlier uses of the term by Stoermer since the 1980s and marked the beginning of broader scientific discourse on human-driven geological change, though without a formal stratigraphic framework at the time. Throughout the early 2000s, discussions proliferated in interdisciplinary literature, emphasizing empirical markers such as , soil perturbation from , and chemical pollutants, but debates centered on the epoch's temporal boundary, with proposals ranging from the advent of (~8000 years ago) to the mid-20th-century "Great Acceleration" of population growth and industrialization. Geologists increasingly scrutinized these claims against International Commission on Stratigraphy's criteria for epochal units, including synchronous global signals like anomalous sedimentation and biotic turnover, yet no consensus emerged on a precise or dedicated research body. A pivotal advancement occurred in 2008 when geologist Jan Zalasiewicz and colleagues published "Are We Now Living in the Anthropocene?" in GSA Today, arguing affirmatively based on stratigraphic evidence including widespread radionuclides from nuclear testing, persistent synthetic compounds like plastics, and homogenized faunal assemblages—signals argued to rival those defining prior epochs like the Pleistocene. This paper highlighted the need for rigorous geological validation over informal usage, influencing subsequent calls for formal evaluation within stratigraphic bodies, though it acknowledged challenges in pinpointing a boundary due to diachronous human impacts. These pre-2009 exchanges, primarily in peer-reviewed outlets and conferences, built empirical momentum without institutional structure, setting the stage for organized scrutiny.

Key Developments (2009-2016)

The Working Group (AWG), following its formation, initiated systematic evaluation of stratigraphic evidence supporting the as a distinct geological unit, emphasizing signals such as the global spike in and from mid-20th-century thermonuclear testing as a potential primary marker for the epoch's base. Group members, comprising geologists, archaeologists, and other specialists, compiled multidisciplinary data on human-induced changes, including accelerated sedimentation, biostratigraphic shifts, and chemical anomalies post-1950, aligning with the onset of the "Great Acceleration" in industrial and . The AWG's first in-person meeting occurred in October 2014 at in , , where participants discussed preliminary evidence, potential Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) candidates, and interdisciplinary integration of data from sediments, ice cores, and lake varves. This was followed by the second meeting in 2015 at the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research in Cambridge, United Kingdom, focusing on refining stratigraphic criteria and evaluating sites like Crawford Lake in for high-resolution records of post-1950 environmental shifts. In April 2016, the third AWG meeting took place on 22–23 April in , , hosted by the Institute, where consensus was sought on proposing the as a formal and advancing a GSSP tied to nuclear radionuclides, with preparations for a comprehensive book publication underway. Later that year, at the 35th International Geological Congress in , , the AWG presented an interim summary of evidence, recommending the as a new series/ with its base in the mid-20th century, supported by a vote of approximately 88% in favor among members. This decision highlighted radionuclides as a synchronous global marker, distinct from natural variability, though further ratification by the Subcommission on was required.

Post-2016 Refinements

Following the 2016 majority vote by the Working Group (AWG) affirming the as a distinct geological , the group intensified efforts to identify a Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP), or "," to provide a precise stratigraphic boundary. This refinement process emphasized multidisciplinary evidence, including radionuclides, , and biotic changes, with a proposed base around the mid-20th century to capture the "Great Acceleration" in human impacts. By 2019, 29 of the AWG's 34 voting members endorsed formal recognition of the commencing circa 1950, prioritizing markers like the fallout peak from thermonuclear tests (peaking in 1963-1964) as the primary global signal, while integrating secondary indicators such as fly ash spherules and fertilizer-derived nitrogen isotopes. From 2019 onward, the AWG systematically evaluated 12 candidate GSSP sites worldwide, including lake sediments, peat bogs, and coral reefs, to ensure the selected location exhibited uninterrupted, high-resolution records of the proposed boundary. This vetting process involved coring, geochemical analysis, and paleontological assessments to verify and durability of stratigraphic signals across hemispheres. In July 2023, after iterative deliberations and voting, Crawford Lake in , , emerged as the premier candidate due to its annually laminated (varved) sediments, which preserve a continuous record from the with exceptional fidelity, including a sharp onset of anthropogenic markers at approximately 1950—evidenced by elevated plutonium-239/240, , and heavy metal pollution layers. These refinements culminated in the AWG's formal proposal submission to the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) in 2023, designating a "Crawfordian Age/Stage" within the Series/Epoch, with the GSSP fixed at a depth of 45 cm in the Crawford Lake core corresponding to A.D. 1951. The proposal incorporated over 15 years of accumulated data, stressing the boundary's geological abruptness (within a decade) and global correlatability, while addressing potential diagenetic issues through multiple proxy validations. This marked a shift from broader conceptual debates to a rigorously defined chronostratigraphic unit, though internal critiques highlighted the exclusion of earlier anthropogenic signals predating 1950.

The Formal Proposal

Defining the Epoch Boundary

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) proposed defining the lower boundary of the Anthropocene epoch at 1952 CE, corresponding to the mid-20th-century onset of the Great Acceleration—a period of exponential increase in human population, industrialization, and that produced globally synchronous stratigraphic signals. This date was selected over earlier candidates, such as the or agriculture's advent, due to the boundary's requirement for a sharp, correlatable global marker distinguishing recent anthropogenic dominance from prior variability. The primary stratigraphic marker is the abrupt global spike in and isotopes (Pu-239/240), resulting from atmospheric thermonuclear weapons testing between 1952 and 1963, with peak fallout in the early 1960s but a clear onset in 1952. This radionuclide signal is diachronous by mere years across latitudes, offering high precision for correlation in sediments, ice cores, and corals, unlike vaguer proxies such as carbon isotopes or that lack similar synchronicity. Supporting signatures include widespread synthetic chemical pollutants (e.g., PCBs, pesticides), fly-ash particles from combustion, and biotic changes like proliferation, all amplifying the plutonium horizon's utility as a "." To anchor this boundary formally, the AWG nominated a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) at Crawford Lake, Ontario, , utilizing its annually varved (laminated) sediments that preserve the plutonium upturn precisely from 1952 CE onward, alongside nitrogen isotopes from fertilizers and spheroidal fly-ash. Three auxiliary stratotype sections were proposed for validation: Beppu Bay () for marine records, Sihailongwan Maar Lake (China) for continental lakes, and Śnieżka peatland () for terrestrial peat, ensuring multi-proxy, multi-environment corroboration of the boundary's global imprint. This approach aligns with International Chronostratigraphic Chart standards, prioritizing empirical, falsifiable over conceptual or event-based definitions.

Primary Markers and Signatures

The Anthropocene Working Group designates artificial radionuclides, particularly and isotopes, as the primary stratigraphic marker for the proposed boundary, due to their abrupt global spike from thermonuclear weapons testing between 1945 and 1963, with a sharp upturn commencing around 1952 CE coinciding with the onset of the Great Acceleration in human activity. These isotopes exhibit exceptional across diverse sedimentary archives, including lake varves, bogs, and ice cores, providing a precise, diachronous-free signal unmatched by earlier variations. Concentrations peaked in 1963–1964 before declining due to the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, yet persist as a durable, anthropogenically unique tracer distinguishable from natural radionuclides like or . Supporting chemical signatures include persistent organic pollutants (POPs) such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and pesticides like , which surged from the onward through industrial synthesis and agricultural intensification, embedding novel molecular structures in global sediments. , notably lead from alkylated additives (evident in 207Pb/206Pb ratio shifts post-1945) and aluminum from processing, similarly display mid-century escalations, with and ice-core inventories reflecting unprecedented anthropogenic mobilization exceeding natural fluxes by orders of magnitude. and cycles have been perturbed by synthetic fertilizers, doubling global stocks since the early and elevating nitrate deposition in polar ice to levels unseen in the prior 100,000 years. Mineralogical and technofossil markers reinforce these signals, with spheroidal carbonaceous fly ash particles—byproducts of fossil-fuel combustion in power plants—appearing synchronously around 1950 in remote archives like ice and Antarctic sediments, serving as a proxy for intensified carbon emissions. and synthetic polymers, absent before industrial-scale production post-1950, now constitute widespread sedimentary components, alongside novel minerals from and aluminum production, forming durable "technofossils" that encapsulate human material dominance. Biotic signatures, while less synchronous than geochemical ones, include accelerated extinction rates surpassing background Holocene levels since the 19th century and biotic homogenization via and , with stratigraphic evidence in pollen, chironomid, and algal shifts reflecting and habitat alteration from the mid-20th century. Collectively, these markers delineate a stratigraphic discontinuity at circa 1950 CE, characterized by rapid, human-driven perturbations across systems, justifying the AWG's boundary proposal over earlier candidates like or industrialization.

Supporting Multidisciplinary Evidence

Biological evidence supporting the proposal includes the global redistribution of species, with over 50% of terrestrial s now living in areas altered by humans, and a marked increase in introductions coinciding with mid-20th century and trade expansion. Domesticated mammals and birds constitute approximately 60% of on , surpassing wild mammals by a factor of five, reflecting intensive and rearing that intensified post-1950. records show elevated rates, with human-driven and overhunting contributing to a crisis distinct from background levels, as evidenced by stratigraphic traces of assemblages and shifts in sediments. Climatic signatures encompass a rapid temperature rise exceeding variability, with global mean surface temperatures increasing by about 1°C since 1950, driven by anthropogenic that surpass natural forcings like orbital changes. and sediment proxy data reveal a sharp uptick in atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm pre-industrial to over 400 ppm by the late , synchronous with combustion acceleration. Sea-level rise rates have accelerated to 3.7 mm/year since 1993, compared to 1-2 mm/year in the late , linked to and glacial melt amplified by human-induced warming. Biogeochemical perturbations provide chemical evidence, including disrupted nitrogen and phosphorus cycles from fertilizer use, leading to eutrophication and stratigraphic layers rich in synthetic nitrates post-1950. Persistent organic pollutants and appear globally in sediments and ice cores starting mid-century, forming novel stratigraphic units absent in prior epochs. Fly ash from combustion and heavy metal enrichments, such as lead from leaded peaking in the 1970s, mark industrial signatures that are diachronous earlier but synchronize around the Great Acceleration. Oceanographic data reinforce these changes, with acidification reducing surface by 0.1 units since pre-industrial times due to CO2 absorption, impacting organisms and leaving shell dissolution traces in marine strata. Hypoxic "dead zones" have proliferated, expanding from fewer than 50 in to over 400 by 2008, correlated with nutrient runoff and warming stratification. These multidisciplinary signals collectively demonstrate system alterations unprecedented in scale and synchronicity compared to dynamics, as synthesized by the AWG.

Review and Rejection

Submission to SQS

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) submitted its formal proposal to the Subcommission on Quaternary (SQS) on October 31, 2023, seeking ratification of the as a new geological epoch within the International Chronostratigraphic Chart. The submission followed over a decade of deliberations by the AWG, established in under the SQS, and culminated in an internal AWG vote in March 2023 approving Crawford Lake, Ontario, Canada, as the primary candidate for the Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP). This proposal designated the base of the at 1952 CE, coinciding with the peak of atmospheric and a sharp global signal of and -240 isotopes in sediments, ice cores, and other archives. The proposal argued for the Anthropocene as a distinct series/epoch rank, succeeding the , based on stratigraphic evidence of unprecedented human-driven changes, including the "Great Acceleration" in , industrialization, and biogeochemical perturbations since the mid-20th century. Primary markers included synchronous global spikes in radionuclides (e.g., from thermonuclear detonations), , fertilizer-derived and , and biotic homogenization, all diverging sharply from Holocene baselines. The GSSP at Crawford Lake was selected for its annually resolved varved sediments preserving these signals without hiatuses or bioturbation, supplemented by three Standard Auxiliary Boundary Stratotypes (SABS) at Beppu Bay (), Sihailongwan Maar Lake (), and Śnieżka peatland () to demonstrate global synchroneity. Under (ICS) procedures, the SQS was tasked with initial review, requiring a approval (typically 60%) before advancement to the ICS and (IUGS) for final . The AWG's documentation, comprising an and detailed parts on stratigraphic context, boundary criteria, and multidisciplinary evidence, was made publicly available on EarthArXiv to facilitate transparency and peer scrutiny. Proponents emphasized the proposal's adherence to formal chronostratigraphic standards, prioritizing primary plutonium fallout as a non-biological, datable event over earlier candidates like agriculture or the , which lacked comparable global stratigraphic utility.

2024 Voting Process

The Working Group's formal proposal for recognizing the as a geological , with a base at the mid-20th century marked by the plutonium spike from , was submitted to the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) for review in 2023. The SQS, comprising approximately 24 international experts in , conducted a binding vote on the proposal in 2024. The results showed 12 votes against formalization, 4 in favor, 3 abstentions, and 3 non-votes, including from AWG chair Jan Zalasiewicz and secretary Mike Head, who recused themselves due to their advocacy roles. This rejection by the SQS, a subunit of the (ICS), triggered the standard ratification process under ICS bylaws, which require endorsement or challenge within two months. The ICS executive validated the SQS outcome as procedurally sound, citing the opposition and adherence to voting protocols that exclude non-voting chairs from influencing tallies. On March 5, 2024, the full ICS membership ratified the rejection without formal appeal, as SQS votes are typically final absent procedural irregularities, which were not upheld here despite protests from AWG proponents alleging insufficient debate time. The ICS decision advanced to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for final oversight, where 15 of 17 subcommission chairs endorsed the negative vote on March 20, 2024, in a joint IUGS-ICS statement emphasizing the proposal's failure to meet stratigraphic criteria for epochal boundaries, such as global synchroneity and primacy over prior human impacts. Critics within the AWG, including Zalasiewicz, contested the process's transparency, arguing that the SQS distribution and compressed timeline disadvantaged supporters, though IUGS maintained the vote reflected rigorous peer rather than procedural flaws. This culminated in the official denial of epoch status, preserving the as the current epoch pending future proposals.

ICS Final Decision

In March 2024, the Subcommission on Stratigraphy (SQS), a body under the (ICS), concluded its vote on the Working Group's (AWG) proposal to formalize the as a new geological epoch beginning in 1952. The voting period ran from early to 4 March 2024, resulting in 4 votes in favor, 12 against, and 3 abstentions, with 3 members not participating; this fell short of the required 60% for approval. The ICS subsequently ratified the SQS rejection, determining that the proposed boundary—marked by mid-20th-century signatures such as from nuclear tests—did not meet stratigraphic criteria for a distinct due to insufficient global synchroneity and duration relative to prior changes. The (IUGS), which oversees the ICS, confirmed the decision on 20 March 2024, effectively ending the formal proposal process after 15 years of deliberation. Proponents of the proposal, including AWG Colin Waters, expressed disappointment, arguing the vote overlooked multidisciplinary of human-induced planetary change, while critics within the SQS emphasized that epochal boundaries require longer-term geological persistence beyond recent anthropogenic signals. The decision maintains the epoch as current, with the retained as an informal term for describing human impacts rather than a ratified stratigraphic unit.

Scientific Controversies

Proponents' Arguments

Proponents of formalizing the as a geological , led by the (AWG), assert that the mid-20th century onset of the "Great Acceleration"—characterized by exponential rises in human population, industrialization, urbanization, and resource extraction—produced globally synchronous stratigraphic signals that distinguish it from the . These signals, they argue, fulfill the International Commission on Stratigraphy's criteria for a new chronostratigraphic unit, including a clear boundary stratotype, persistent markers in sediments, and evidence of abrupt, irreversible Earth system changes comparable to prior transitions like the Paleogene-Neogene boundary. Central to their case is the proposed Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) at Crawford Lake, Ontario, where annually laminated (varved) sediments provide high-resolution records of the boundary at approximately 1952 CE, marked by a spike in from atmospheric . This serves as the primary marker due to its global distribution, sharp stratigraphic onset, and absence of natural precursors, offering a precise, non-diachronous datum layer traceable in diverse archives such as cores, corals, and bogs. Supporting auxiliary stratotypes in sites from , , and confirm the signal's across hemispheres. Beyond radionuclides, proponents highlight a suite of novel anthropogenic signatures, including , fly ash from combustion, and heavy metal enrichments, which form thin but laterally extensive strata in lakes, estuaries, and urban deposits. Biogeochemical perturbations, such as elevated and from fertilizers altering sedimentary ratios, and biotic indicators like homogenized assemblages from and elevated extinction rates—estimated at 100-1,000 times background levels—further delineate the . Technofossils, including and aluminum artifacts, represent unprecedented material fluxes dominating the geological record. The AWG maintains that these changes signify human dominance over natural processes, with persistent stratigraphic preservation expected to endure for millions of years, justifying epochal status over informal usage. They contend that rejecting formalization overlooks the accumulating empirical record, which already embeds the Anthropocene's reality independent of ratification, and aligns with precedents where short-term events (e.g., Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) warranted unit status despite brevity. In their 2016 summary, 88% of AWG members voted to recommend formalization at epoch/series rank, emphasizing the boundary's utility for correlating global strata.

Critics' Objections to Epoch Status

Critics argue that the proposed epoch fails to satisfy stratigraphic criteria for formal recognition in the , as its markers lack sufficient thickness, durability, and global synchronicity. Sedimentary records tied to the mid-20th-century boundary—such as plutonium spikes from nuclear testing—typically form thin layers, often just centimeters thick in varved sediments or ice cores, which are challenging to correlate worldwide and readily distinguishable from underlying strata. These signals, while detectable in specific sites like Crawford , do not exhibit the robust, persistent stratigraphic expression required for epochal boundaries under International Chronostratigraphic Chart guidelines. A core objection centers on the proposed start date around , deemed too recent and narrow to delineate an , which conventionally spans hundreds of thousands to millions of years and reflects enduring planetary shifts. Stratigraphers like Stanley Finney and contend that this boundary overlooks earlier, widespread modifications—such as deforestation from agriculture around 8,000 years ago or the ecological upheavals of the post-1492—rendering the "Great Acceleration" phase an arbitrary truncation of a protracted influence rather than a discrete onset. Critics further note that many anthropogenic indicators, including plastics and radionuclides, may degrade or disperse over geological timescales, failing to produce a reliable, diachronous marker comparable to those defining prior epochs like the Pleistocene-Holocene transition. Documentation of Anthropocene effects often depends on historical and observational data rather than primary stratigraphic evidence, diverging from the empirical foundation of . This reliance raises concerns about objectivity, with some geologists positing that formalization serves broader advocacy for over pure scientific demarcation. In the 2024 Subcommission on Stratigraphy vote, 12 of 16 members rejected the Anthropocene Working Group's proposal, citing its inability to demonstrate a singular, globally uniform event warranting epoch status amid ongoing variability. Proponents of rejection advocate informal usage of the term for recent human dominance, preserving the timescale's focus on long-term, geologically verifiable units without diluting its precision.

Debates on Timing and Scale

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) proposed defining the epoch's lower boundary at around 1950 CE, emphasizing the "Great Acceleration" in human activity and synchronous global stratigraphic markers, including /240 isotopes from atmospheric and spikes in fly ash, , and fertilizer-derived . This timing aligns with from sediment cores, such as those at Crawford , showing abrupt shifts in sedimentary composition post-1950, including elevated heavy metal concentrations and biotic homogenization. Proponents argued this date captures a novel, geologically detectable "" that distinguishes the interval from the , supported by multidisciplinary data on atmospheric CO2 rise and accelerating after . Critics of the 1950 boundary highlighted its recency bias, asserting that significant human-induced changes predated it by centuries or millennia, rendering the proposed synchronicity overstated. For instance, the Industrial Revolution from circa 1780 introduced coal-derived carbon isotopes and land clearance detectable in peat bogs and ice cores, while the Columbian Exchange after 1492 caused megaherbivore extinctions and Old World species invasions across hemispheres, evidenced by pollen records and genetic analyses. Earlier proposals included an "Orleansian" stage around 1600 CE for global biomass declines or even the Neolithic Revolution 8,000 years ago for agriculture's soil perturbations, with detractors noting that pre-1950 signatures like deforestation and early fossil fuel emissions already exhibit causal human dominance over natural variability. These objections underscore a lack of a singular, globally uniform onset, as regional impacts varied temporally, complicating precise chronostratigraphic demarcation. Debates on scale question whether post-1950 alterations constitute an epoch-worthy transformation, given epochs typically span millions of years with irreversible, planetary-scale . Opponents argued the signals, while detectable in anthropogenic strata like urban fill and plastic-rich layers, remain superficial and potentially reversible—unlike the of the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary—due to ongoing deposition rates and the brevity of the proposed interval (under 75 years at formalization). reveals uneven global distribution, with pronounced changes in industrialized regions but muted effects in remote oceans or polar archives, challenging claims of universality. Proponents countered that the velocity and novelty of alterations, including homogenocene biotic shifts and technofossils persisting for , surpass many historical events in causal attribution to Homo sapiens, justifying epoch rank despite brevity. This contention reflects broader tensions between informal recognition of human dominance and formal requirements for enduring, synchronous litho-, bio-, and chemo-stratigraphic divergence.

Criticisms and Broader Implications

Methodological and Procedural Critiques

Critics have argued that the methodology employed by the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) is fundamentally ill-suited to delineating the Anthropocene due to the epoch's extreme recency and the diachronous nature of human-induced stratigraphic signals. Traditional seeks globally synchronous boundaries identifiable in , but when applied to events within the last few millennia, such as agricultural transformations spanning 12,000 years, these appear time-transgressive on human timescales while potentially synchronous over deeper geological ones. This proximity between observers and the proposed boundary—fixed at circa 1950 based on fallout—excludes broader anthropogenic strata like urban deposits and cultivated soils, favoring an imposed isochronous line over a comprehensive, strata-led analysis of material evidence. The selection of Crawford Lake in , , as the proposed Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP), or "," has drawn methodological scrutiny for its limited representativeness of planetary-scale human impacts. While the site's varved sediments preserve a clear mid-20th-century signal from nuclear testing, detractors contend it emphasizes localized and the "Great Acceleration" at the expense of earlier, widespread alterations such as and soil modification dating back thousands of years, rendering the boundary arbitrary and insufficiently reflective of cumulative causal drivers. This approach prioritizes a narrow, abrupt marker over the gradual, multifaceted onset of human dominance, undermining the geological rigor required for epochal classification. Procedurally, the AWG's composition and internal dynamics have been faulted for introducing biases that skewed towards formalization over stratigraphic purity. Of its 35 members, only about half were geologists, with recruitment occurring informally through personal networks rather than rigorous stratigraphic credentials, potentially favoring proponents of an interdisciplinary, concept-driven narrative. Social scientists contributed primarily in translational roles, diluting focus on core geological methods and prompting concerns that non-stratigraphers influenced decisions without equivalent expertise, including debates over voting rights. Early tensions arose from inadequate communication with the broader stratigraphic community and deviations from established norms, such as initially favoring a Global Stratotype and Astronomical Section (GSSA) over the conventional GSSP, which delayed alignment with International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) protocols. These critiques portray the AWG's as originating from environmental and philosophical imperatives rather than emergent stratigraphic , inverting the conventional where lithostratigraphic observations precede chronostratigraphic units. Opponents maintain this top-down framework neglected socio-economic causal analyses of impacts, fostering a proposal vulnerable to rejection by the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS) in March 2024, where 12 of 21 voting members opposed it, citing procedural adherence to Geological Time Scale conventions amid unresolved methodological inconsistencies.

Ideological and Policy Influences

Critics of the Anthropocene Working Group's (AWG) efforts have argued that the push for formal epoch recognition incorporated ideological elements, particularly an emphasis on portraying human industrial activity as a moral failing requiring radical societal reconfiguration. For example, proponents such as philosopher have framed the as necessitating a departure from growth-oriented economies, warning of existential risks if consumerist trends persist, while historian has advocated using the concept to challenge conventional economic models and lifestyles. These views, echoed in broader AWG deliberations, suggest an alignment with anti-industrial ecological politics that prioritizes normative judgments over neutral stratigraphic classification. In a 2016 analysis published in GSA Today, geologists questioned whether the proposal constituted a scientific decision or a political statement, noting its potential to elevate public and policy awareness of human impacts at the expense of rigorous chronostratigraphic criteria, such as a distinct global boundary in the rock record post-1945. Similarly, the Breakthrough Institute characterized the AWG's advocacy as infusing deliberations with an ideological slant, potentially allowing environmental to be legitimized through geological nomenclature, as evidenced by the arbitrary selection of a mid-20th-century start date tied to the "Great Acceleration" of human activity. Such critiques highlight how the formalization drive, spanning from the AWG's inception in to its 2024 proposal, may have served to amplify narratives of crisis that extend beyond empirical into prescriptive policy domains. On the policy front, formal designation was positioned by some AWG affiliates as a tool to underscore the urgency of interventions like emissions reductions and protections, potentially influencing frameworks such as the by embedding human dominance in geological time as incontrovertible fact. This linkage is apparent in calls for interdisciplinary applications that could justify regulatory shifts toward sustainability mandates, with the epoch's rejection by the International Commission on Stratigraphy's Subcommission on in March 2024 viewed by skeptics as a safeguard against politicizing . However, the AWG has rebutted claims of ulterior motives, asserting that their work centered on verifiable mid-20th-century stratigraphic signals—like plutonium spikes from nuclear testing and microfossils—rather than advocacy for agendas, a stance reinforced by the term's origins in Paul Crutzen's 2000 scientific synthesis. Systemic biases in academia, where environmental research often leans toward interpretations emphasizing anthropogenic catastrophe, may have contributed to the proposal's framing, as noted by former International Union of Geological Sciences secretary-general Stanley Finney, who in 2022 described the effort as potentially more political than evidentiary. Despite this, no direct evidence links AWG members' personal ideologies to procedural manipulations, and the group's composition—dominated by stratigraphers from institutions like the University of Leicester—prioritized data from sites such as Crawford Lake over ideological conformity.

Alternative Frameworks Proposed

In response to the methodological challenges of formalizing the as an —such as its brief duration of approximately 70 years since the mid-20th century and the time-transgressive nature of human stratigraphic signals—several geologists have advocated defining it instead as an ongoing geological event. This framework posits the as a heterogeneous process of human-induced environmental change, varying regionally and temporally (e.g., early in versus recent industrialization globally), without necessitating a single synchronous Global Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP). Unlike , which demand isochronous boundaries preserved in strata, events like the (circa 2.4–2.0 billion years ago) accommodate spatial variability and ongoing dynamics, better reflecting empirical evidence of diachronous markers such as and species introductions dating back millennia in some areas. Proponents, including Philip Gibbard, argue that an event-based definition resolves stratigraphic inconsistencies by decoupling the term from rigid chronostratigraphic requirements, allowing it to serve as a flexible descriptor for human-planet interactions across disciplines while preserving the epoch's integrity. Similarly, Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin emphasize that this approach recognizes diverse causal processes, including pre-industrial impacts, without implying permanence comparable to prior epochal shifts, which typically span thousands to millions of years. Empirical support draws from proxy data like pollen records and carbon isotopes showing non-uniform global signals, contrasting with the Working Group's proposed 1952 start tied to and the Great Acceleration. Following the International Commission on Stratigraphy's rejection of the proposal on March 4, 2024, the event framework has been highlighted as a pragmatic alternative that acknowledges anthropogenic strata without altering the Geological Time Scale, enabling continued scientific discourse on human impacts within the existing Holocene-Meghalayan structure. Some researchers further suggest informal usage of "" for the post-1950 surge in markers like plastics and radionuclides, treating it as a sub-Holocene phase rather than a bounded unit, to prioritize empirical pattern-matching over formal . This avoids overemphasizing recency while integrating from cores, sediments, and indicating that current changes, though rapid, lack the depth for epochal distinction.

Legacy and Ongoing Efforts

Influence on Earth Sciences

The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), established in 2009 under the Subcommission on Stratigraphy, catalyzed extensive stratigraphic research by identifying mid-20th-century markers such as from nuclear testing and persistent synthetic compounds as potential global boundary stratotype sections and points (GSSPs). This effort documented human-induced signals in sediments, ice cores, and biota, prompting geologists to quantify anthropogenic perturbations in the rock record with unprecedented precision, including analyses of Crawford Lake varves in as a proposed GSSP site revealing annual layers of industrial pollutants since 1950. Such investigations expanded the scope of and beyond natural forcings, integrating datasets on and geochemical anomalies. The AWG's deliberations fostered interdisciplinary convergence in Earth sciences, bridging with Earth system modeling to assess human dominance over planetary processes like carbon cycling and nutrient fluxes. By advocating for the as a formal starting circa 1950—marked by the Great Acceleration in , energy use, and emissions—the group compelled researchers to incorporate socioeconomic drivers into geological narratives, influencing fields from to . This shift is evident in heightened publication rates on human stratigraphic impacts, with studies emphasizing causal links between industrial activities and detectable lithospheric changes, thereby challenging traditional uniformitarian assumptions in . Despite the International Commission on Stratigraphy's rejection of the epoch proposal in March 2024, the AWG's framework endures in Earth sciences as an informal unit, driving ongoing inquiries into Holocene- transitions and alternative chronostratigraphic classifications like events or stages. The has refined methodological rigor, including s over of boundaries and the role of diachronous human effects, while promoting planetary-scale monitoring networks for future stratigraphic evidence. This legacy underscores a where anthropogenic is treated as a primary geological agent, informing predictive models of stability without formal taxonomic status.

Policy and Cultural Impact

The Anthropocene Working Group's (AWG) efforts, culminating in a formal proposal for a new geological epoch starting around 1950, have permeated discussions despite the proposal's rejection by the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy in March 2024. The group's emphasis on markers like and plastic proliferation has bolstered arguments for policies addressing the "Great Acceleration" of human impacts since the mid-20th century, influencing frameworks such as the European Environment Agency's assessments of and . For instance, the concept has informed calls for "planetary ," shifting policy focus from localized to global-scale human of Earth systems, as articulated in analyses of 21st-century challenges. In , the AWG's narrative has reshaped discourse on and resource governance, portraying as a politicized where anthropogenic changes necessitate integrated environmental- policies. This has contributed to the adoption of Anthropocene-inspired language in international agreements, such as those under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, where human dominance is framed as a driver for emission reductions and adaptation strategies. However, critics argue that the AWG's mid-century boundary promotes a narrow lens, potentially overlooking earlier industrial-era transformations and favoring reactive measures over root-cause innovations in and . Culturally, the AWG's work has embedded the Anthropocene in public consciousness, transcending geological debates to inspire literature, art, and education on humanity's planetary footprint. Post-rejection, the term persists as a cultural shorthand for existential environmental reckoning, evident in media portrayals of microplastics and climate tipping points, and in philosophical critiques challenging Enlightenment-era nature-society divides. Ecologists and commentators maintain its relevance for fostering ethical responsibility, even as formal stratigraphic denial underscores that human influence predates the proposed epoch start. This enduring influence has unified disparate issues like pollution and habitat loss under a human-centric paradigm, though some view it as fostering fatalism rather than adaptive optimism.

Future Directions Post-Rejection

Following the formal rejection of the as a geological by the Subcommission on on March 4, 2024—with 12 votes against, 4 in favor, and 3 abstentions—the Working Group transitioned to independent operations outside its prior affiliation with the . The group's former official status ended, with its activities archived as legacy documentation, yet members have persisted in research and publications emphasizing human-induced stratigraphic signals. This includes ongoing analyses of global boundary stratotype sections, such as Crawford Lake, to document mid-20th-century markers like fallout and , without pursuing immediate resubmission for status. Proponents within the group, including secretary Simon Turner, advocate classifying the Anthropocene as a geological "event" rather than a full , aligning with precedents for time-transgressive human impacts that do not require a single global boundary. This approach, detailed in proposals by Philip Gibbard and colleagues, frames it as an ongoing perturbation within the , potentially formalizable at a lower stratigraphic rank like or age, avoiding debates over precise onset . Critics of the rejection, such as Martin Head, highlight procedural limitations—like the inability to revise the proposal amid emerging data—as impetus for refined future submissions, though no timeline has been set. Interdisciplinary efforts continue to prioritize the term's informal utility in earth sciences, with researchers like Fernanda Quaglio urging sustained debate to integrate anthropogenic signals into broader . Post-2024 publications from group affiliates, including responses to the vote, reinforce evidence of planetary changes while exploring hybrid frameworks that blend formal with ecological and social analyses, ensuring the concept influences policy without stratigraphic rigidity.

References

  1. https://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/working-groups/anthropocene
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213305417300097
  3. https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/6853/
  4. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00868-1
  5. https://anthroecology.org/what-happened-to-the-anthropocene-epoch/
  6. https://e360.yale.edu/features/anthropocene-denied
  7. http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/working-groups/anthropocene/
  8. https://www.iugs.org/_files/ugd/f1fc07_40d1a7ed58de458c9f8f24de5e739663.pdf?index=true
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213305417300097
  10. http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/files/working-groups/Anthropocene-Working-Group-Newsletter-No1-2009.pdf
  11. https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/26/3/article/i1052-5173-26-3-4.htm
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12152282/
  13. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/has-the-anthropocene-been-canceled/
  14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15487733.2018.1541682
  15. https://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/files/working-groups/AWG-2022-Newsletter_Final.pdf
  16. https://www.aapg.org/news-and-media/details/explorer/articleid/67122
  17. https://www.anthropocene-curriculum.org/project/anthropocene-working-group-2009
  18. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024AV001430
  19. https://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/files/working-groups/Anthropocene-Working-Group-Newsletter-No1-2009.pdf
  20. https://eos.org/articles/whats-next-for-the-anthropocene
  21. https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/10.3389/esss.2023.10089
  22. https://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/feature-story/anthropocene-signal
  23. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01641-5
  24. https://phys.org/news/2023-07-crawford-lake-chosen-primary-marker.html
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721001431
  26. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2313098121
  27. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-14179-w
  28. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/jul/spot-marking-beginning-anthropocene-identified-ucl-researchers
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10933251/
  30. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825224001715
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666033423000205
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7957438/
  33. https://inters.org/files/crutzenstoermer2000.pdf
  34. https://commons.gc.cuny.edu/?get_group_doc=2354/crutzen%2Bstoermer%2Banthropocene.pdf
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335490356_The_Anthropocene_in_its_Early_Scientific_Phase_2000-2009_Objects_and_Objectives
  36. https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/18/2/pdf/i1052-5173-18-2-4.pdf
  37. https://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/files/working-groups/Anthropocene-Working-Group-Newsletter-Vol-7-release.pdf
  38. https://www.fni.no/news/the-anthropocene-working-group-meeting-at-fni-article224-330.html
  39. https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/513430/1/Conference%2520report_anthropocene_text%2520%28NORA%29.pdf
  40. https://www.gea.mpg.de/35671/awg-proposes-crawford-lake-as-site-of-anthropocene
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10629512/
  42. https://eartharxiv.org/repository/object/6853/download/13192/
  43. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/11/1187125012/anthropocene-crawford-lake-canada-beginning
  44. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad2622
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969720365177
  46. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b00543
  47. https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/6963/
  48. https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/6954/
  49. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00675-8
  50. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/mar/22/geologists-reject-declaration-of-anthropocene-epoch
  51. https://stratigraphy.org/news/152
  52. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024EF005719
  53. https://theconversation.com/did-the-anthropocene-start-in-1950-or-much-earlier-heres-why-debate-over-our-world-changing-impact-matters-209869
  54. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2010.0339
  55. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825224001235
  56. https://www.science.org/content/article/anthropocene-dead-long-live-anthropocene
  57. https://www.polytechnique-insights.com/en/columns/planet/anthropocene-divides-the-scientific-community/
  58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133319831673
  59. https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/long-live-the-good-anthropocene
  60. https://clivehamilton.com/the-delusion-of-the-good-anthropocene-reply-to-andrew-revkin/
  61. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-our-times-the-anthropocene-epoch-matters-dearly-to-you/
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11780095/
  63. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/17/climate/anthropocene-age-geology.html
  64. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jqs.3416
  65. https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70226191
  66. https://www.episodes.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.18814/epiiugs/2021/021029
  67. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02712-y
  68. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950236524000343
  69. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EF001896
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3357752/
  71. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/exiting-the-anthropocene
  72. https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2020/anthropocene-and-global-politics-rewriting-earth-political-space
  73. https://earth.org/not-yet-anthropocene-what-the-official-rejection-of-the-anthropocene-as-earths-new-epoch-means-for-the-climate-discourse/
  74. https://issues.org/farewell-anthropocene-ghosh/
  75. https://www.e360.yale.edu/features/anthropocene-denied
  76. https://www.eurac.edu/en/blogs/imagining-futures/is-the-anthropocene-the-answer-anda-pforr
  77. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00786-2
  78. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023EF004045
  79. https://doi.org/10.18814/epiiugs/2021/021029
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.