The Anthropocene Epoch Rejection

For nearly a decade and a half, the scientific community has debated whether humanity has permanently altered the planet enough to warrant a new slot on the geologic time scale. This proposed era, known as the “Anthropocene,” was meant to signify the Age of Humans. However, in a decisive move in March 2024, top-level geologists voted to reject this proposal. We officially remain in the Holocene epoch.

Inside the Historic Vote

The decision to reject the Anthropocene was not made lightly. It was the culmination of years of research led by the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG). This group submitted a formal proposal to the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS), the scientific body responsible for defining the current timeline of Earth.

The vote was reportedly not close. According to reports from the New York Times and Science.org, the committee voted 12 to 4 against the proposal, with two abstentions. This result was later upheld by the executive committee of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), the ultimate authority on naming geological time periods.

The Proposal Details

The proposal argued that the Holocene epoch, which began 11,700 years ago at the end of the last ice age, had ended. The AWG suggested the Anthropocene began specifically in 1952.

This year was chosen because of a sharp increase in human population, industrialization, and energy use following World War II, often called the “Great Acceleration.” The primary geological marker for this start date was the radioactive fallout from hydrogen bomb tests, which left a distinct chemical signature in sediment around the world.

The Problem with Crawford Lake

To declare a new epoch, geologists need a “Golden Spike.” This is technically known as a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP). It is a specific physical location where the rock or sediment layers clearly show the transition from one era to the next.

The AWG selected Crawford Lake in Ontario, Canada as this Golden Spike. The lake is deep and distinct because its bottom waters do not mix with the surface. This creates layers of sediment that are perfectly preserved, much like tree rings. In these layers, scientists found clear evidence of:

  • Plutonium from nuclear testing.
  • Ash from coal-fired power plants.
  • Heavy metals.
  • Microplastics.

While the SQS agreed that the sediment in Crawford Lake clearly shows human activity, they disagreed that this single location and the 1952 start date justified ending the Holocene.

Why Geologists Voted No

The rejection creates a confusing headline because it sounds like geologists are denying human impact on the Earth. That is not the case. The IUGS statement explicitly acknowledged the “cataclysmic” changes humans have caused. The disagreement is purely technical and centers on how geological time is defined.

Here are the specific reasons cited for the rejection:

1. The Timeline is Too Short

Geological epochs usually span millions of years, or at least many thousands. The Holocene is only 11,700 years old. Ending it after such a short period is unprecedented in stratigraphy. The proposed Anthropocene would have been roughly 75 years long so far, which represents less than a blink of an eye in geological history.

2. Human Impact Didn’t Start in 1952

Many voting members argued that pinning the start of the “Human Age” to 1952 was arbitrary. Humans began altering the planet thousands of years ago.

  • Agriculture: The rise of farming significantly changed soil and pollen records thousands of years ago.
  • The Columbian Exchange: The arrival of Europeans in the Americas in the 1500s altered global flora and fauna permanently.
  • The Industrial Revolution: Massive carbon emissions and mining began in the 1700s and 1800s.

By defining the epoch strictly by nuclear fallout in the 1950s, the proposal ignored millennia of human transformation of the planet.

3. It Is an Event, Not an Epoch

Several prominent geologists, including Philip Gibbard (Secretary General of the International Commission on Stratigraphy), have suggested that the Anthropocene should be classified as a geological event rather than an epoch.

Events like the “Great Oxidation Event” or the “Cambrian Explosion” are transformative periods that happen over time (diachronous) rather than at a single synchronized moment across the globe. Viewing the Anthropocene as an ongoing event allows scientists to acknowledge human impact without adhering to the rigid rules of the official International Chronostratigraphic Chart.

What Happens Now?

For now, the textbooks remain unchanged. We are officially living in the Meghalayan Age of the Holocene Epoch, within the Quaternary Period.

However, the term “Anthropocene” is unlikely to disappear. It has become a standard term in anthropology, history, and environmental science to describe the current crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss. The IUGS noted that the concept will continue to be used socially and politically, even if it is not formally engraved on the geological time scale.

The Anthropocene Working Group is effectively disbanded regarding this specific proposal, and a new vote on the matter cannot be held for at least ten years.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this vote mean geologists deny climate change? No. The voting members explicitly stated that human impact on the planet is undeniable and massive. They simply concluded that the specific definition proposed (starting in 1952) did not meet the strict technical standards required to define a new geological unit.

What is the current epoch? We are in the Holocene epoch. It began approximately 11,700 years ago after the last major ice age receded.

Why was 1952 chosen as the start date? The year 1952 was chosen because of the global spread of plutonium isotopes from hydrogen bomb testing. This provided a sharp, synchronous marker that could be found in sediments worldwide.

Will they vote on this again? Under the rules of the International Commission on Stratigraphy, a rejected proposal cannot be resubmitted for ten years. However, the term will likely continue to evolve and be used informally.