2026-10-01 マックス・プランク研究所
A drill core from Crawford Lake was selected by the Anthropocene Working Group (AWG) as a reference for defining the proposed Anthropocene epoch. Annual calcite layers on the lakebed allow for precise dating. Around 1950, they show a marked increase in plutonium particles – one of several traces of human impact that serve as geological markers for the Anthropocene. © Tim Patterson
＜関連情報＞
- https://www.mpg.de/27010011/science-or-strategy-researchers-call-for-transparency-over-the-anthropocene-rejection
- https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EF007638
科学か戦略か？人新世の否定は透明性を要求する Science or Strategy? The Rejection of the Anthropocene Epoch Demands Transparency
Georg N. Schäfer, Jürgen Renn, Christoph Rosol, Jochen Büttner
Earth’s Future Published: 01 October 2026
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EF007638
Abstract
In a recent Earth’s Future article, Skelton and Noone (2025, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024ef005719) crystallized the dilemma facing the geoscientific community: the Anthropocene Working Group’s (AWG) evidentiary case for an Anthropocene epoch is at least as strong as, and in their view stronger than, that for the Holocene. Yet a substantive scientific debate cannot proceed until the reasons for the rejection of the AWG’s proposal to formalize the Anthropocene as a geological epoch are made transparent. Often framed as a question of stratigraphic markers and boundary criteria, the Anthropocene controversy now turns on a more fundamental issue: whether current institutional practices for establishing geological time units meet the transparency and procedural standards expected in times of heavy public reliance on Earth-system expertise. Drawing on surfaced communications, public statements, independent reporting and publicly available documentation, we identify unresolved procedural irregularities in the evaluation of the AWG proposal, including questions about voter eligibility and quorum, restricted access to key documents, and the handling of an IUGS-commissioned geoethics report. These matters have not been addressed in a systematic or public way. We argue that clarifying the basis of the decision—scientific or otherwise—is essential to preserve trust in stratigraphic governance and, by extension, in the institutions that underpin global environmental knowledge. We therefore call for full disclosure of the relevant documentation and an independent procedural review to ensure that decisions about Geological Time Scale remain credible and legitimate in the context of rapid planetary change.
