Anthropocene - A New Geological Epoch?

You may have heard of the Holocene epoch but have you heard of the Anthropocene, the so-called new epoch of geological time?  The Anthropocene can be defined as the epoch in which human activity has been shaping the earth.

The idea was first proposed in the 1870s by an Italian geologist called Antonio Stoppani but his theory was rejected by other scientists because they thought it was unscientific.  This may have been because the impact of humans at the time was localised and the impacts of anthropogenically caused climate change were not yet known.  In the year 2000, however, Dr Paul Crutzen suggested we are now in the Anthropocene and many scientists took him seriously; the proposal of a new epoch was presented to the International Commission on Stratigraphy, which is the organisation that decides when geological epochs start and finish.

Evidence of the Anthropocene?

Fossils

The main way of identifying periods of geological time is to examine fossils.  Many scientists say that the fossils we leave behind will be vastly different from those of the past.  For instance, because of human land use in the UK, there will be a decrease in fossils of the country’s climax community (deciduous forests) and an increase in agricultural related fossils.  Some scientists suggest there will even be fossils of cities, but others say this would be highly unlikely as cities are built on land, where erosional processes have a greater influence than sedimentation, which normally leads to fossils being created.  Nevertheless, Dr Mike Ellis says that cities may be buried due to sea level rise – he may have forgotten that not all cities are on the coast!

Climate Change

In recent times anthropogenically caused climate change has played a significant role in the shaping of some landscapes.  For example, the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas is now widely believed to have been contributed to by greenhouse gas emissions causing global warming.  This melting has led to increased erosion of the earth’s surface.

Nitrogen Cycle

The Nitrogen Cycle has been severely affected by humans, in particular through the production and use of fertiliser.  This is needed for farming because when crops are harvested, it interrupts the natural recycling of nitrogen (which would normally occur when plants decompose).  Fertiliser leaches into river systems causing algae blooms and this can result in fish being starved of oxygen.  More importantly, the use of fertiliser has allowed the human population of the planet to expand, reaching 7 billion this week. 

However…

Some scientists argue that we cannot just decide when a new epoch has started.  Geology is a historical science therefore an epoch cannot be determined based on predictions.  Moreover, no one can even decide on a start date for the Anthropocene, with different disciplines arguing different dates depending on the particular evidence they have studied.  For example, some ecologists may claim that the Anthropocene began with the development of agriculture around 8,000 years ago; whereas scientists interested in recent climate change may suggest that it began with the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s.

Does it Matter Anyway?

As many of the processes occurring today do not resemble the Holocene (the epoch we may still be in if the Anthropocene does not exist), it may be useful for many scientists to use the word ‘Anthropocene’ to indicate the period of recent time in which humans have had a significant impact on the earth’s surface.  Some even argue that it is important because it helps emphasise the severity of human impacts on the world and may encourage people to change their behaviour.  Personally I do not think that the International Commission on Stratigraphy should formalise the Anthropocene as a new epoch when we cannot yet be certain of whether or when it has actually started.  It is for future generations to decide when all the evidence is present – that is if humans are still around by then!

Imogen 13W

Are Natural Resources a 'Curse'?

In his book ‘The Bottom Billion’, Paul Collier states that ‘about 29% of the people in the bottom billion live in countries in which resource wealth dominates the economy’.  In Nigeria, the largest oil producing country in Africa, the Niger Delta alone provides 80% of the government’s revenue and 95% of export earnings.

Revenues from oil are often far greater than the amount of money countries receive in overseas development aid.  For example, in 2006 Angola’s income increased to over $30 billion because of oil.  This was almost as much as the whole of the African continent received in aid that year.  This may sound like a brilliant solution to the ‘bottom billion’s’ development issues; however, in many countries this has not proven to be the case.

This may seem strange, especially if you consider the benefits natural resources have brought to more developed countries such as Norway and Canada.  Nevertheless, Collier argues that the key difference between these and the ‘bottom billion’ countries is that the ‘bottom billion’ countries lack ‘checks and balances’.  One reason for this is that the resource rich countries have no need to collect taxes from their people, so there is less public scrutiny of government spending in the ‘bottom billion’ nations.  This allows widespread corruption to continue and for the wealth to stay in the pockets of a small minority.  For example, in Angola most of the money has stayed with the richest 5% of the population, with the other 95% living on less than a dollar a day (R. Dowden (2008) ‘Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles’).

You may think that since the spread of democracy to many African countries in the 1990s there will have been better checks and balances so people could benefit from the oil.  However, this is not always the case as resource rich democracies can use ‘politics of patronage’.  This means the governing party bribes people to vote for it because it has the money to do so and can get away with it.  So maybe an autocracy would be better?  Collier argues against this, stating that autocracy only works in societies which are not ethnically diverse. 

Furthermore, an abundance of natural resources can lead to a recurring cycle of conflict because natural resources can motivate and finance conflict.  For example, Nigeria’s Delta region has seen violence occurring since 1998, with militant groups such as the Niger Delta People’s Volunteer Force and MEND fighting to gain control of the oil resources which they believe are rightfully theirs.  The unequal distribution of wealth has been a major factor in triggering the violence.

Another reason for discontent is the devastating environmental consequences of the extraction of natural resources such as oil.  For instance in the Niger Delta pollution is a major problem – over 500 oil spills have occurred in the 5 years to 2010.  If this wasn’t bad enough, oil companies have been known to cause damage and then blame local people for sabotaging the pipelines.

Finally, resource exports cause the countries’ currencies to rise against other currencies.  This means exports become uncompetitive.  For example, in Nigeria in the 1970s oil revenues built up so the value of Nigeria’s currency increased, leading to wage increases, so prices of other exports like peanuts and cocoa also increased.  This meant that people in nations like the UK began to buy their peanuts and cocoa from other countries instead.  ‘Bottom billion’ resource rich countries will therefore find it difficult to follow the route to development taken by countries such as China through manufacturing.

Nevertheless there is reason for optimism as ‘bottom billion’ countries can take steps to make natural resources an opportunity rather than a curse.  In 2004, for example, Nigeria adopted the ‘Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative’ and this appears to be having some positive results.

Imogen (13W)