Earlier this month a panel of geologists voted down a proposal that would have “officially” recognized the time frame in which we now live as an entirely distinct interval of geologic time, called the “Anthropocene.” The vote against changing the designation from its current “Holocene” moniker was 12-4 against, with two abstentions. Three committee members did not vote, perhaps because they were too busy on social media to worry about such things.
As reported by Raymond Zhong, writing for the New York Times, the decision implicated more than just scientific semantics:
The declaration would shape terminology in textbooks, research articles and museums worldwide. It would guide scientists in their understanding of our still-unfolding present for generations, perhaps even millenniums, to come.
The dispute over whether to designate our current era in updated terminology arose mostly because of disagreements as to when such an “Anthropocene” period actually began.
By the definition that an earlier panel of experts spent nearly a decade and a half debating and crafting, the Anthropocene started in the mid-20th century, when nuclear bomb tests scattered radioactive fallout across our world. To several members of the scientific committee that considered the panel’s proposal in recent weeks, this definition was too limited, too awkwardly recent, to be a fitting signpost of Homo sapiens’s reshaping of planet Earth.
The somewhat surprising refusal by a majority of geologists to re-classify the current epoch was largely technical and in good faith. As Zhong notes, it does not reflect any disagreement about the fact that humans have irrevocably altered the environment. For example, several of the scientists ascribe to the notion that the current era is better described as an “event” — such as the mass
extinction “event” that so discomfited the dinosaurs -- rather than a distinct geologic epoch.
As Zhong notes:
Under the rules of stratigraphy, each interval of Earth time needs a clear, objective starting point, one that applies worldwide. The Anthropocene working group proposed the mid-20th century because it bracketed the postwar explosion of economic growth, globalization, urbanization and energy use. But several members of the subcommission said humankind’s upending of Earth was a far more sprawling story, one that might not even have a single start date across every part of the planet.
Dominique Browning, an environmentalist and current vice-president of the Environmental Defense Fund, observes that neither “Anthropocene” nor “Holocene” may adequately describe the character of the current time. In a guest essay also published in the New York Times, she suggests that we simply describe it as the “Obscene.”
Obscene as in offensive to moral principles. Repugnant, disgusting. Ill-omened or abominable, if etymology is your thing.
We have a plastic crisis, starting with the trash we see casually discarded in our streets, parks, streams and oceans. And yet the production of plastics continues to rise. For decades, the plastics industry sold the public on the material with the misleading message that it would be recycled. Very little is, with recovery and recycling rates at less than 10 percent globally. But the problem is far deeper, as a lengthy report in the journal Annals of Global Health said last year: “It is now clear that current patterns of plastic production, use and disposal are not sustainable and are responsible for significant harms to human health, the environment and the economy, as well as for deep societal injustices.”
Browning notes, however, that the environmental issues the world faces go far beyond the omnipresence of plastic waste:
Last year was by far the planet’s warmest, coming close to reaching the 1.5 degrees Celsius rise since preindustrial days — the point that climate scientists have cautioned against exceeding. Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels also reached record highs last year. Methane leaks have been underreported for years. And yet, at an energy conference in Houston this past week, the head of the world’s largest oil producer told fossil fuel executives, “We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas.” Applause followed.
Millions of people continue to be exposed to harmful chemicals in food and other consumer goods. Many of the chemicals in household products are detectable in our bloodstreams, and some have been linked to cancer, developmental disorders and reproductive and endocrine issues. Air pollution remains a major problem. While the United States has made great strides in improving air quality, airborne mercury and soot remain problems. Worldwide, air pollution is a global health crisis and is estimated to cause nearly 6.7 million premature deaths annually. And then there is deforestation, the acidification of the ocean, drought and the loss of biodiversity — not a complete list by any means.
I think the ”Obscene” epoch has a nice ring to it. Assuming it is faithfully transcribed into our scientific textbooks and research papers, such a designation would have the cascading effect of imparting through a whole new generation of scientific literature the catastrophic seriousness of the calamity we now face.
It might even have an unintended political impact as well. Just imagine the reaction of right-winger types when they run a Google search on “Obscene,” looking for books to ban, and instead they get a thousand hits about climate change.
I’m completing my Oscars tour by watching Past Lives tonight, so everybody have a great evening!
