In March 2024, a proposal to formally recognize the 'Anthropocene' as a new geological epoch, marking humanity's indelible impact on Earth, met rejection from the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy (SQS). This decision came despite strong prior support from the specialist Anthropocene Working Group (AWG), which had meticulously documented humanity's planet-altering changes to Earth's crust.
The majority of scientists within the AWG — 29 out of 33 voting members, or 88%, in a May 21, 2019, vote — agreed humanity has created a new geological reality with a distinct marker, even favoring a mid-20th century base for this new epoch, according to Quaternary. Yet, the formal geological body rejected its official designation, creating a tension between expert consensus and the rigid classification systems of geological institutions.
This institutional resistance, despite overwhelming scientific agreement, suggests the geological establishment struggles to adapt to the speed and scale of human-induced planetary change. Such a delay in formal recognition will likely not diminish scientific and public discourse around humanity's profound impact, but it may impede policy responses tied to an official designation.
The Epoch That Wasn't: Defining Humanity's Geological Signature
The Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) formally proposed a new geological epoch where human activity dominates Earth's geology and ecosystems. They sought to add a "Crawfordian Stage/Age" and "Anthropocene Series/Epoch" to the International Chronostratigraphic Chart (ICC), with a base level set at 1952 CE, according to Quaternary.
Their designated "golden spike" — a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) — was found in varved lake sediment from Crawford Lake, Ontario, Canada. This site offered a clear stratigraphic record of mid-20th century changes, providing the physical evidence most AWG experts considered "stratigraphically real," according to ScienceDirect. The rejection of such a precisely defined marker, despite its scientific rigor, highlights the deep institutional divide over how to classify human impact.
