Sustainability Language
Anthropocene
A proposed — and widely used but formally rejected — name for a geological epoch defined by dominant human influence on Earth's systems.
Definition
A term popularised by atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen and biologist Eugene Stoermer in 2000 to describe an interval in which human activity has become the dominant influence on the Earth system. In March 2024 the Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy voted 12–4 (with 2 abstentions) against ratifying a formal Anthropocene epoch beginning around 1950, a decision confirmed by the International Union of Geological Sciences.
References
SQS rejection confirmed by IUGS; proposal to treat the Anthropocene as an informal planetary event.
Crutzen/Stoermer origin (2000); AWG process (2009–2023); Great Acceleration framing; vote outcome.
Overview
What it means
The rejected proposal would have defined the epoch by a "golden spike" in Crawford Lake, Canada, marking the Great Acceleration of population, industry and pollution after ~1950. Its rejection was procedural and conceptual, not a denial of human impact: many scientists now frame the Anthropocene informally as an ongoing planetary "event" of Earth-system transformation rather than a formal time unit.
How it is used
Despite lacking formal status, the term is deeply embedded across science, humanities and policy — in Earth-system science, sustainability discourse, and cultural criticism — as shorthand for the era of human planetary influence.
Why it matters
The Anthropocene frames sustainability as a geological-scale responsibility and underpins concepts such as planetary boundaries. The 2024 vote is frequently misreported as science "rejecting" human-driven change; the accurate reading is that one formalisation approach failed while the concept remains scientifically and culturally productive.
Definitions and controversy
Definition status is "Contested": formal stratigraphic status was rejected, while informal usage continues to grow; start-date proposals range from early agriculture to the mid-20th century.
Review
Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.
Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.
Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.
Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and an editorial decision to attribute them.
Submitted reviews stay private until an editor decides whether to accept and attribute them.
Contribute to this entry
Help improve this definition
Your contribution is private while it is checked. Nothing changes on this page unless an editor accepts it.
Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.
Endorse this definition
Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.
Review board
Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.
Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.
AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.
An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.