A new paper in Earth’s Future documents procedural flaws in the rejection of the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch and calls for transparency and an independent review of the decision
To the Point
Anthropocene Rejection: The International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) rejected the Anthropocene epoch proposal in 2024 despite decades of research showing human impact on Earth systems.
Procedural Concerns: Researchers from the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology highlight procedural flaws in the rejection, including lack of transparency and an invalid voting process.
Call for Transparency: The authors demand the IUGS disclose all relevant documents and allow an independent review to ensure the decision’s legitimacy.
Members of the Crawford Lake team working on the lake, with PI Francine McCarthy and Martin Head (previous Chair of the Subcommission on the Quaternary) looking on
© Photograph by Brenna Bartley, courtesy Conservation Halton. All Rights Reserved
Since its introduction in 2000, the concept of the Anthropocene – the idea that human activities are the major driver of Earth systems – has become highly influential throughout society, including in culture, science, and law. Yet despite decades of research revealing humanity’s influence on the planet, the Anthropocene Working Group’s (AWG) proposal of an Anthropocene epoch was ultimately rejected by the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) in 2024.
Now, a new commentary paper by authors from the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology calls on the IUGS to fully disclose the relevant documentation, as well as for an independent procedural review of the decision.
The paper documents procedural violations that cast doubt on the legitimacy of the IUGS’ decision, the authors argue.
“Our main concern isn’t the rejection itself. A proposal can legitimately be rejected,” says Georg Schäfer, lead author of the paper. “The issue is that no adequate scientific justification for it was ever published, and serious allegations on procedural inconsistencies remain unaddressed.”
A drill core from Crawford Lake was chosen by the AWG as candidate site demarcating a proposed Anthropocene epoch. In this Canadian lake, calcium and carbonate ions from the surrounding rocks combine and crystallize into small calcite crystals when the water is warm. These crystals gradually sink and form a distinct white layer at the lake bottom each summer. This natural phenomenon provides researchers with a precise chronological marker, allowing them to determine the specific year being examined. Around the year 1950, there is a notable increase in the concentration of plutonium particles. This significant change serves as one of many clear indication of human impact and, consequently, provides evidence of the Anthropocene
© Tim Patterson
Those procedural concerns include a compromised evaluation, in which the Anthropocene Working Group could not address comments or make revisions, and an invalid voting process, in which the majority of votes cast were invalid under the body’s rules. An internal ethics report investigating these violations, which the IUGS executive committee did not act upon, remains publicly inaccessible.
“The Anthropocene epoch proposal demands transparency and procedural legitimacy,” says Professor Jürgen Renn, founding director of the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology. “If decisions regarding a humanity-induced planetary crisis can be made behind closed doors, with key documents withheld and public communication vague or contradictory, then geoscience’s capacity to inform societal understanding of Earth system change is diminished.”
