# data[].attributes.body
Before I read this article, I didn't have a clue how integral oil and gas production is to the Norwegian economy -- and how much of a pollutant it is. I fell privy to the commonplace stereotype Noorgard writes about: a conceptualization of the Norwegian people as nature loving, peaceful, and simplicity-orientated. What's really struck such a chord with me is the author's discussion of the tools of order and innocence, fears about security, and the "we have suffered" narrative. My fieldwork and research is in Palestine, and all these phenomena are so overwhelmingly present in Israeli culture to cover up/ justify/ avoid discussion of the Israeli genocide of Palestine. The tools of avoidance discussed in this article very concisely and poetically describe what strikes me as a profound aspect of the human condition: our ability to avoid culpability for our own wrongdoings at all costs. I'm happy I read this article, and grateful for the light it has shed on my area of research -- as well as on this area of study and what I've learned w/r/t climate denial in Norway.
695166

# data[].attributes.body
Sophie Ferretti (694981)
I found Moore’s section on fisheries in the Bahamas to be very relevant.  Moore explains that the reef health in the Bahamas is degrading, which puts the country at risk of not obtaining the MSC certification. This could be a potential issue as consumers now demand a “sustainable stamp” from imported seafood. As Moore notes, it is indeed ironic that international commodity chains are valuing sustainability while supporting commercial fishing and the mass consumption of marine products. It is also ironic that it is the local population that would suffer if the fisheries were not able to acquire the MSC certification and lose connection to important markets in Europe or the US, especially when it is not them who hold the main responsibility for the loss of the marine biodiversity. Factors such as pollution, land-use changes, increasing touristic activity can instead be held more accountable for the poor reef health of the islands.

Moreover, the concept of the MSC “sustainable stamp” made me recall that it was also addressed by the documentary Seaspiracy. The documentary talks about how the majority of the MSC’s income comes from their logo licencing on seafood, “the more blue ticks they handed out, the more money they made”. This makes me wonder whether this certification is actually “sustainable” and if consumers in large markets such as Europe and the US are aware of this when paying so much attention to purchasing seafood with this stamp.

# data[].attributes.body
Li Yunshan(694824)
I found Roberts and Parks' discussion about the fossil economy quite impressive. It's crucial to notice that when the minority decided what the majority's life would be, there is a reflection of inequality which we should take more consideration in practice.

But I have a question towards the data of Roberts and Parks, referring that "in the early early 21st century, the poorest 45% of the human population accounted for 7% of emissions, while the richest 7% produced 50%".  There is the case that many developed countries built factories and hired domestic workers in developing countries to save cost, so the burden of CO2 emission shifted to developing countries. Who should be responsible for these emissions?

# data[].attributes.body
Li Yunshan (694824)
I watched the inspiring film The Anthropologist, and was astonished to see how climate change has affected people's life. For many of us, it might seem a foreign story, but this film help me reflect the environmental destruction of my hometown, a small city in northern China, whose economy growth rely heavily on coal mining. Many section of road above the tunnel collapse and the air is bad. And who can tell that this village used to be famous for its cultural heritage, the Confucian culture? Climate change has different embodiment in different locations, but there's no reason not accepting the truth.

# data[].attributes.body
Anita Lateano 694963
Like Sophie's comment above, I found Moore's commentary around MSC certification really interesting. It made me question the value of things that small coastal communities, like this one in the Bahamas have, and how their value is dictated by the global north. Their lobster, for example, is only valuable when it has the MSC certification, which only then makes it desirable in the US. This transfer of power, into what is valuable and what isn't no longer comes from the people who farm, source or produce these products, it's dictated by NGOs, government legislation, third parties, and arbitrary tick-box exercises - to get this 'approval' for it to be suitable to market.

MSC certification was now necessary she said, ‘so we can continue to sell to Walmart’, registering the irony that the promotion of sustainable fisheries is increasingly central to international commodity chains linking large-scale commercial fishing and the mass consumption of marine products.

This idea is continued further on when Moore mentions the 'sustainable tourism destination' as an emergent product appearing alongside the postcolonial paradise method of tourism. Once again, local nature, be it food source, or a place itself, is turned into a commodity through western narratives and western demand. The agency in deciding what and how things are valued is being taken from the community.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should we redefine environmental 'privilege'? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Should we redefine environmental 'privilege'? 

# data[].attributes.body
Anita Lateano 694963

This piece made me think about the word 'privilege', especially as it's being used much more in recent years, with the rise of 'woke' culture.

Even when the impacts of global warming are apparent, Noorgard writes "Yet the people I spoke with in Bygdaby played a critical role in legitimizing the status quo by not talking about global warming even in the face of late winter snow and a lake that never froze." It really makes me question the connotations of the word privileged. To me, the world privilege makes it feel like something aspirational, but as Noorgard concludes, even this environmentally privileged community experience complex feelings of guilt, responsibility and hopelessness.

What would be the impact if it were changed to something with more negative connotations, for example, the 'environmentally ignorant' - would this spark more action and change?

I'd be interested in what other people thought about the term, and if there are any other researchers looking into the environmentally privileged.. as Noorgard writes: Nearly all environmental justice research highlights the experiences of groups who are structurally oppressed rather than those who are structurally privileged.

# data[].attributes.body
It is interesting that Malm & Hornberg see the Anthropocene as an ‘analytically flawed’ narrative that inhibits action, and as a perceived threat to the social sciences, since it is being driven by natural scientists. I think I’d rather adopt Latour’s more positive view that the Anthropocene is a ‘gift for anthropology because it recognizes that human activity is having a geological impact on the earth’. The Anthropocene narrative opens the door for a contemporary anthropological activism. Nigel Jeffery 655044@soas.ac.uk

# data[].attributes.body
I agree, MSC labeling is likely to be problematic as a 'sustainable stamp' and that as well as over-fishing by local fishers, pollution, land-use and increased tourism are also contributing to poor reef health and loss of bio-diversity. However, whilst acknowledging the need for socio-ecological justice, I'm going to stand up for the lobster, whose rights are not mentioned at all in this paper!

# data[].attributes.body
the comment on Sophie & Anita's post above is by Nigel Jeffery 655044@soas.ac.uk

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article extremely interesting.
The ecological changes that can be seen in the Bahama's are a direct result of its tourism industry or export. However it is the Bahamian population that will have to face the burden of the economic and ecological fragility that is a direct result of them. The ones who are both historically and currently responsible for climate change are also the ones who rarely face the direct repercussions of this.
Regarding the discussion surrounding the MSC certification of lobsters. The emphasis on the appearance of sustainability by companies like Walmart rather than adopting practices that are actually sustainable is something that we see repeatedly.
(Mahira Dasgupta, 695001)

# data[].attributes.headline
Put the focus on the real causes and avoid generalization

# data[].attributes.subject
Put the focus on the real causes and avoid generalization

# data[].attributes.body
Mathew W. Banseh 694947
I really found the arguments of Malms and Hornborg against the Anthropocene approach to sustainability very insightful and intriguing. I was among those Malms and Hornborg describe as having swallowed the approach of Anthropocene "lock, stock and barrel" since I used to equate population growth to environmental destruction. This intriguing article has demonstrated with figures that it is not the case because the rate of population increase has no correlation with the rate of increase of emissions and as the authors argued " if a correlation is negative, causation is out of the question". the focus should therefore be on natural scientists and the few who use this field to exploit our environment.

# data[].attributes.body
On page 35 of this article, the author highlights the importance of anthropologists within Anthropocene discourse, which is called “anthropological engagement” that makes locals’ voices articulate to the international policy-making field. However, I was thinking is there any possibility that anthropologists could be one of the conspirators who suppress the locals' point of view?

Compare to the week one essential reading, Lewis and Brightman 2017, which depicts the negation of local perspectives from the policy-making context, it seems Moore’s attitude towards anthropological contributions tends to be more optimistic.
(Posted by Yueh-Chou; SOAS ID: 693655)

# data[].attributes.body
I think Rudiak-Gould makes an important case for not forcing familiar (industrial) blame narratives of climate change onto communities like those in the Marshall Islands. Their self-blaming tendencies could be a valuable exemplar, because personal accountability can potentially spur more immediate climate change mitigation action in a way that corporate culpability may not. But I wonder if industrial vs universal blame is a false dichotomy, and if so, could greater good be achieved by recognising both narratives? For example, where possible, boycotting an environmentally-destructive company and/or industry (e.g. palm oil) could be a form of individual action (reducing one’s own consumption) with a view to creating wider change, provided other individuals adopt a similar approach? (Zareena Khan 695806)

# data[].attributes.body
This reading made me think about the extent to which the rest of the world is complicit in reinforcing the view of “Mythic Norway.” From my experience living in Lebanon, I have witnessed how members of my community may regard themselves as heavily complicit in the climate crisis— albeit contributing very little relative to people living in the global North— yet still insist on exonerating countries like Norway and considering them as inspirational models of sustainability.

What I find particularly interesting in the case of Lebanon is the complete absence of the kinds of ’tools of order’ and ‘tools of innocence’ Noorgaard refers to in the Norwegian context. On the one hand, the default position of people living in Lebanon is ontological instability— our own government accidentally blew up our city last year, injuring thousands and releasing tons of ammonium nitrate into the atmosphere. Perhaps acknowledging the impact of our environmentally detrimental practices isn’t necessarily difficult because we don’t feel secure in the first place. On the other hand, I would argue that there are ‘tools of culpability,’ as opposed to ’tools of innocence.’ There’s a strong awareness that the Lebanese state is responsible for environmental degradation because this impact is clearly visible in everyday life (from piles of garbage lining the streets to the deafening sound of generators). But there’s also a sense that the community is forced into environmentally destructive practices a result of state negligence. Some common questions citizens ask themselves include: “How can we stop using cars or taxis if we don’t have a public transportation system?” “How can we cut down on generator fumes when the state doesn’t provide us with electricity?”

# data[].attributes.body
The Anthropocene displacement - human nature, as opposed to natural nature - is an interesting development posited by Malm and Hornberg. They argue towards a sociogenic insight, rather than working through the rhetoric of the biological evolution of human beings.

'Probing the depths of social history' would bare some insight on social relations and how they've shaped the current crisis of climate change and the shift from human values and ethics to financial values. We therefore need anthropologists to study these correlates alongside natural scientists to unveil differentiated vulnerabilities due to free market hierarchies whilst taking into account local issues when it comes to policy making. Humans are having an impact on the earth, but who, where and how are all important social contexts which should be taken into account. Sarah 683385

# data[].attributes.body
In this article, Rudiak-Gould explains how there exist two major blame stances within the climate change debate: that taken by indigenous activists and favoured by many anthropologists, which places blame on industrial societies and argues that those most effected by climate change are those who contribute least to it (industrial blame), and that which is favoured by scientists and politicians in the ‘Global North’ which argues that climate change is man-made and global, and requires worldwide culpability (universal blame). However, the focus of this article, the Marshallese Islanders, flip these blame-beliefs on their head. These low-lying island inhabitants blame themselves for climate change, and seemingly counter-intuitively ignore the fact that their contribution to the issue is negligible. This article shows that victimisation and agency are not mutually exclusive concepts, and that, despite being victims of climate change in scientific terms, Marshallese Islanders do not need to allow ‘industrialised’ societies to fix the problem they created. Instead, they gain agency through victimising themselves, and through this are able to invoke positive change. Perhaps if the ‘Global North’ took a similar stance, with individuals taking accountability and becoming victims themselves, the global fight against climate change would be more effective. (658729)

# data[].attributes.body
Malms and Hornborg's arguments on the Anthropocene origin's were extremely accurate in my opinion. Yes, climate change arose from the human species but is this specific enough? As Anna Tsing comments the term is contentious, not all humans have the same amount of responsibility for the environmental crisis but everyone is 'anthropos'. The blame has turned towards the wrong side in my understanding, I would like to delve more into the approach of Capitalocene and Chthulucene. However, maybe the broadness of the term 'Anthropocene' is useful in climate change activism as, although not all of humanity caused the problem, the term could be galvanizing, as it shows us our collective responsibility to the environment.  - Ioli 695883

# data[].attributes.body
I find Marshallese's islanders approach extremely admirable. Climate change was mainly caused by certain parties, but at this point of urgency would it make sense for the islanders to just point fingers and throw tantrums (even if they have all the rights of doing so)? With their approach of doing what they can to improve the situation, they are setting a good example for the rest of the world, especially for the global North and parties that have cause the problem in the first place. Elena (695342)

# data[].attributes.body
I found interesting Moore's observation about the relationship between sustainability and tourism: although tourism is the source of environmental destruction in the Bahamas (as it is elsewhere) the tourism industry (both foreign developers and local actors such as the Ministry of Tourism) have transformed environmental awareness in a "tourist product" (31). Also, what does sustainability look like? Is it the postcard image of "private, segregated enclaves" or the "dense settlements" where Bahamians look after each other? (Elena R)

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Malm and Hornborg that there are indeed lifeboats for the rich and the privileged (if human species is an abstraction, are there multiple "species" within humankind, based on wealth and privilege?).
Will race/gender and class dictate who will stay behind and bear the consequences of anthropogenic climate change while the privileged will escape ( Elon Musk: "History is going to bifurcate along two directions. One path is we stay on Earth forever, and then there will be some eventual extinction event. The alternative is to become a spacefaring civilization and a multi-planet species"). Or, as Anna Tsing says "getting a rocket ship and going to live in another planet after we trashed ours" is not a solution for anybody, not even the wealthiest as humankind won't be able to survive in isolation? (Elena Ruiu 687127)

# data[].attributes.headline
As I finished reading Malms and Hornborg, I was left with a question if the ‘Anthropocene’ developed from an ideology into a deftly packaged tool to (rightfully) market climate change anxiety. And then I read Moore’s introduction that used the phrase ‘a political label designed to call attention to this change’. Another striking statement that stood out in the early part of the essay was Moore’s reflection on the people of the Bahamas and others asking, “What kinds of stories do experts and laypeople tell in order to locate themselves in global change narratives and enroll others in planning for change?” I felt this to be a strong motivation to explore the climate change conversations happening in the larger media and internet spaces to understand the discourses being deployed by different factions and to understand the impact of these media-led clarion calls. The concept of 'ecobiopolitics' (Olson, 2010) is very interesting in this context as well because of the focus on the socio-political efforts to highlight anthropogenic impact. The argument of the non-uniformity of Anthropocene demands that indigenous programmes and community-led interventions require a local context and therefore, a local, native ‘call-to-action’. As suggested by Moore later in the article, the Anthropocene is an outcome of the positive feedback cycle of ideas of climate change. It is important therefore that this positive feedback cycle translates further down to contextual local action policies and initiatives. Moore highlights this later while speaking of 'attention to design'. (Posted by Kavita Natarajan; SOAS ID 694599)

# data[].attributes.subject
As I finished reading Malms and Hornborg, I was left with a question if the ‘Anthropocene’ developed from an ideology into a deftly packaged tool to (rightfully) market climate change anxiety. And then I read Moore’s introduction that used the phrase ‘a political label designed to call attention to this change’. Another striking statement that stood out in the early part of the essay was Moore’s reflection on the people of the Bahamas and others asking, “What kinds of stories do experts and laypeople tell in order to locate themselves in global change narratives and enroll others in planning for change?” I felt this to be a strong motivation to explore the climate change conversations happening in the larger media and internet spaces to understand the discourses being deployed by different factions and to understand the impact of these media-led clarion calls. The concept of 'ecobiopolitics' (Olson, 2010) is very interesting in this context as well because of the focus on the socio-political efforts to highlight anthropogenic impact. The argument of the non-uniformity of Anthropocene demands that indigenous programmes and community-led interventions require a local context and therefore, a local, native ‘call-to-action’. As suggested by Moore later in the article, the Anthropocene is an outcome of the positive feedback cycle of ideas of climate change. It is important therefore that this positive feedback cycle translates further down to contextual local action policies and initiatives. Moore highlights this later while speaking of 'attention to design'. (Posted by Kavita Natarajan; SOAS ID 694599)

# data[].attributes.headline
If, as Malm and Hornborg say that scholars advocating for the Anthropocene ideology are against continuing with capitalism ‘business-as-usual’ then can the Anthropocene concept be used to create any active good or does it, by just grouping all humankind into one species, ensure the blameless are being, by default, blamed, and the culprits are allowed to carry on ‘business-as-usual’? 

# data[].attributes.subject
If, as Malm and Hornborg say that scholars advocating for the Anthropocene ideology are against continuing with capitalism ‘business-as-usual’ then can the Anthropocene concept be used to create any active good or does it, by just grouping all humankind into one species, ensure the blameless are being, by default, blamed, and the culprits are allowed to carry on ‘business-as-usual’? 

# data[].attributes.body
686945

# data[].attributes.body
Oftentimes, as Westerners, we—or I—look upon Nordic countries as very progressive in terms of sustainability, climate change, and green activism. I fell for the “Mythic Norway” propaganda. I am sorry to admit that I was surprised at the willful indifference of this particular Norwedigan community from this reading—an indifference they had the privilege to have. What surprised me most was that it was more of an indifference instead of ignorance. They were aware of our deteriorating climate issues but chose to not see it as a problem. But this made me think back to my own country the US (which the reading points out as being notably apathetic) and recognize that although so many countries in the Global North are different in their approaches to climate change (be it ignorance, apathy, or full-out denial) each country in the Global North is guilty of manipulating the conversation for our own country’s benefit, creating a mentality in which we are devoid of blame or just ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away. Norgaard explains that “the construction of denial and innocence” are the two ingredients that allow this mentality to prosper—a lack of responsibility by Western nations and with it a self-created innocent identity. This idea is definitely the common mentality in the countries that are most responsible for the climate crisis.

# data[].attributes.headline
The flaws of the anthropocene that Malm and Hornborg unpicked in their argument were insightful. Their argument made me consider for the first time the 'anti-social' tendencies  of the anthropocene. The fact that the fossil economy was not caused and is not maintained equally by the population is not new (as mentioned in last week's reading) however as Malm and Hornorg point out, even the very definition of the anthropocene points to a universal human species evolution. Their argument adds further support to the idea that we need to think in terms of socio-nature rather than seperate parts. Malaika 684973

# data[].attributes.subject
The flaws of the anthropocene that Malm and Hornborg unpicked in their argument were insightful. Their argument made me consider for the first time the 'anti-social' tendencies  of the anthropocene. The fact that the fossil economy was not caused and is not maintained equally by the population is not new (as mentioned in last week's reading) however as Malm and Hornorg point out, even the very definition of the anthropocene points to a universal human species evolution. Their argument adds further support to the idea that we need to think in terms of socio-nature rather than seperate parts. Malaika 684973

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/26/3/article/i1052-5173-26-3-4.htm

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Full Text View
Volume 26 Issue 3 (March/April 2016)
GSA Today

Article, pp. 4-10 | Abstract | PDF (432KB)

Stanley C. Finney*, Lucy E. Edwards**

1 Dept. of Geological Sciences, California State University at Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90277, USA
2 U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 20192, USA

Abstract

The proposal for the "Anthropocene" epoch as a formal unit of the geologic time scale has received extensive attention in scientific and public media. However, most articles on the Anthropocene misrepresent the nature of the units of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart, which is produced by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) and serves as the basis for the geologic time scale. The stratigraphic record of the Anthropocene is minimal, especially with its recently proposed beginning in 1945; it is that of a human lifespan, and that definition relegates considerable anthropogenic change to a "pre-Anthropocene." The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.

* Chair, International Commission on Stratigraphy
** Commissioner, North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature

Manuscript received 12 Nov. 2015; accepted 22 Nov. 2015

doi: 10.1130/GSATG270A.1

INTRODUCTION

Since the publication in GSA Today of the article titled, "Are we now living in the Anthropocene?" (Zalasiewicz et al., 2008), the proposal that a new epoch in the geologic time scale called the "Anthropocene" be established has received greatly increasing attention in both scientific and public media (e.g., Nature, Scientific American, Science, Geoscientist, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Economist, National Geographic, Der Spiegel online, to name a few). This attention arises from the desire by some for official recognition of the impact of humans on the Earth system, specifically its surface environments. A 2011 editorial in Nature asked, "Geologists are used to dealing with heavy subjects, so who better to decide on one of the more profound debates of the time: does human impact on the planet deserve to be officially recognized? Are we living in a new geological epoch-the Anthropocene?" The editorial answered the questions as follows:
Official recognition of the concept would invite cross-disciplinary science. And it would encourage a mindset that will be important not only to fully understand the transformation now occurring but to take action to control it. ... Humans may yet ensure that these early years of the Anthropocene are a geological glitch and not just a prelude to a far more severe disruption. But the first step is to recognize, as the term Anthropocene invites us to do, that we are in the driver's seat. (Nature, 2011, p. 254)
That editorial, as with most articles on the Anthropocene, did not consider the mission of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS), nor did it present an understanding of the nature of the units of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart on which the units of the geologic time scale are based. We take this opportunity to provide the greater geoscience community with an understanding of the charge of the ICS and an appreciation of the history and nature of the units of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart. We compare the concept of Anthropocene to that of the systems, series, and stages of the International Chronostratigraphic Chart. We examine its usefulness as a unit defined by the criteria in the International Stratigraphic Guide (http://www.stratigraphy.org/index.php/ics-stratigraphicguide). We address the question of whether or not the International Commission on Stratigraphy is being asked to make what is in effect a political statement.

The ICS and the International Chronostratigraphic Chart

The ICS, the largest constituent scientific body in the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), is composed of a three-person executive board and 16 subcommissions, each with ~20 voting members, who together represent more than 50 countries. Its charge is to define a single hierarchal set of global chronostratigraphic units with precisely defined boundaries that can be correlated as widely as possible. Boundaries are selected at levels that best set limits to the chronostratigraphic unit that they delimit, and boundary definition employs the concept of Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) as set out in the International Stratigraphic Guide (Salvador, 1994) and in revised ICS guidelines (Remane et al., 1996). The web-based archive of the chronostratigraphic units and GSSPs approved by ICS and ratified by IUGS is the ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart and the Table of GSSPs, which are linked to the publications of the ratified GSSP proposals (www.stratigraphy.org).

Most of the systems, series, and stages of the ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart were first defined from type sections or type areas in Europe, and they served as the basis for temporally correlating stratified Phanerozoic rocks worldwide primarily on their paleontological content. Although the traditional chronostratigraphic units were initially characterized by and correlated on the biostratigraphy of macrofossils, the biostratigraphy of microfossils became more widely used because they offered higher resolution and more widespread correlation. More recently, records of magnetostratigraphy, chemostratigraphy, cyclostratigraphy, and sequence stratigraphy have been established for most units, thus adding more varied and global stratigraphic signals for correlation. Thus, the concept of chronostratigraphic units today is a composite of stratigraphic information from successions worldwide.

When the traditional units were first named, boundaries between successive units were rarely defined. In fact, many units in type areas are bounded above or below by unconformities or covered intervals, and type areas of successive units are often at different locations. With continued study in type areas, with the study of stratigraphic successions elsewhere, and with the increased resolution of long-distance correlation, many successive chronostratigraphic units were discovered to either overlap or to be separated by gaps (Fig. 1). Furthermore, because of paleoecological and paleogeographical limits to the fossil content on which the units were recognized and because of the lack of specific boundaries, different interpretations of the stratigraphic extent and status were accorded to the same unit from one region to another, and multiple sets of regional series and stages were established for many systems (e.g., Webby, 1998). These deficiencies complicated stratigraphic nomenclature and hindered communication.

Since the time of Nicolas Steno, those who observed stratified rocks and considered the processes by which they formed accepted the concept that stratigraphic successions recorded the passage of time. Present-day bodies of strata are distinguished from the interval of time in the past when they accumulated as sediment by the use of two sets of terms. Chronostratigraphic terms apply to rock units (system, series, and stage), and geochronologic terms apply to time units (period, epoch, and age). These differences in terminology and concepts are presented in all stratigraphic guides and codes, even in first-year historical geology textbooks, and date to the 2nd International Geologic Congress in Bologna in 1881 (Vai, 2004).

A GSSP defines a stratigraphic boundary between two successive chronostratigraphic units in a single, continuous stratigraphic section. It sets the lower limit to the content of stratigraphic signals in a designated unit; hence, the upper limit to the content of the subjacent unit. The detailed succession of stratigraphic signals through the boundary interval is the basis for interpreting the correlation of that boundary into successions at other localities. The correlation of boundaries between successions in different localities is no different from correlating various stratigraphic levels or intervals within a unit, except that a GSSP is preferably placed at a stratigraphic level that provides the best set of stratigraphic signals for worldwide correlation. Use of lower-boundary GSSPs results in a succession of units between which there are no gaps and no overlaps (Fig. 1). A proposal for a GSSP is evaluated on several criteria (Remane et al., 1996), with the most important being that the boundary interval in the stratotype section has a diversity of stratigraphic signals that serve as the reference for the most reliable long distance correlation possible.

Since the first GSSP was ratified in 1972 for the boundary between the Silurian and Devonian systems, 62 of the 100 boundary levels that define the stages, series, and systems of the ICS Chart (download from www.stratigraphy.org) have ratified GSSPs. Most often, these sites are marked with an explanatory panel, a formal plaque (Fig. 2), and a "golden spike" (Fig. 3). They are regarded as international geostandards, and their protection and future scientific study are encouraged. Each one serves as the primary definition of a boundary, which is the succession of stratigraphic signals in a boundary interval and the single signal at the stratigraphic level at which the boundary is placed. Locating the boundary in stratigraphic successions elsewhere is an interpretation made to the standard reference, the GSSP, after evaluation of all stratigraphic signals. The formal process of ratification of a GSSP (Fig. 4) begins with preparation of a written proposal by a working group comprised of specialists on the boundary interval. Development of a formal proposal requires extensive investigations of candidate stratotype sections and boundary levels worldwide. Following consensus approval of a proposal by the working group, it is then considered by the voting members of the relevant ICS subcommission. If approved by the subcommission, the proposal is forwarded to the ICS executive for consideration and voting by the ICS executive and the chairs of the 16 subcommissions. If approved at this level, the proposal is forwarded to the IUGS Executive Committee for ratification. Following ratification, the GSSP proposal must be published and posted on the ICS website, and the GSSP must be marked. The rigorous criteria on which a GSSP proposal is evaluated and the several levels of evaluation and consideration by which it is approved and ratified give validity and authority to ratified GSSPs as international geostandards.

A geochronologic unit (period, epoch, age) is the time interval during which the strata of a chronostratigraphic unit accumulated (Salvador, 1994). Geologic and biologic events and settings of the past, recorded in and interpreted from the rock record, are expressed in terms of geochronologic units. Once two successive GSSPs have been ratified, all the rocks that can be correlated to levels between the GSSPs are the stratigraphic record from which past events in Earth's history are interpreted for that interval of time. Geochronologic terms yield a relative geologic time scale, and calibrated ages make up a numerical geologic time scale. Calibrated numerical ages do not define the boundaries; they are subject to refinement and recalibration. It is the GSSP, a specific stratigraphic level in a stratotype section, that defines the boundary and to which numerical ages are calibrated to varying degrees
of certainty.

The Anthropocene

The term Anthropocene is widely used. In its latest iteration, it refers to the present, when human impact on Earth's surface, atmosphere, and hydrosphere has been deemed to be global. International organizations; national, regional, and local governments; non-governmental organizations; and industries have taken steps to mitigate and remediate the impact where its nature is judged to be deleterious. Nevertheless, human impact is immense and potentially increasing. But, the question is: Should the Anthropocene be approved by the ICS and ratified by the IUGS as an official unit of the ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart?

Stratigraphic Record of the Anthropocene

In contrast to all other units of the ICS chart, the concept of the Anthropocene did not derive from the stratigraphic record. It arose with Paul Crutzen (2002), a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, who suggested that because of a greatly increased human impact on the Earth system, we had entered a new epoch, for which he proposed the term Anthropocene. Zalasiewicz et al. (2008) considered the effects referred to by Crutzen and raised the question of whether the effects justified the need for a new term, and if so, where and how its boundary might be placed. The ICS Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy established a working group in 2009 to consider these questions. Since then, discussion of the Anthropocene has been extensive, with articles in both scientific publications and the public media, as well as in the greater academic sphere, including the social sciences and the legal community.

Summaries of anthropogenic changes to the Earth system and their occurrence in the stratigraphic record can be found in Zalasiewicz et al. (2008, 2011) and Waters et al. (2014a, 2014b). That stratigraphic record is negligible (Walker et al., 2015), especially with a boundary set at 1945, as recently proposed by the Anthropocene working group (Zalasiewicz et al., 2015). Most of the stratigraphic records mentioned are potential records that might appear in the future; they are based on predictions. Human structures, excavations, boreholes, bioturbation of soils (agriculture) and the sea floor (drag net fishing) are not strata. Made ground, refuse piles, mine dumps, and leach pads are made by humans rather than by natural sedimentation. The strata with records of anthropogenic change are speleothems, ice cores, and non-lithified sediments of rivers, marshes, lakes, coasts, and the ocean floor. In most of these depositional settings, it would be difficult to distinguish the upper few centimeters of sediment from the underlying Holocene, or sediment that has accumulated versus that that is in transit. Published logs with geochemical signatures of human impact are at most a few tens of centimeters thick (Nozaki et al., 1978; Al-Rousan et al., 2004; Marshall et al., 2007). Locating a boundary at 1945 would be difficult for anthropogenic isotope shifts in greenhouse gases that have been rising for 100 years or more (Wolff, 2014).

Defining the Anthropocene by its Base (GSSP) or Beginning (GSSA)

The Anthropocene working group has focused on defining the base or beginning of the Anthropocene, and several recent proposals have been published (e.g., Lewis and Maslin, 2015). That of Zalasiewicz et al. (2015), co-authored with 25 other members of the Anthropocene working group, sets a GSSA (Global Standard Stratigraphic Age) for the Anthropocene as 1945, the year of the first nuclear bomb explosion. Regrettably, focusing on the definition of the beginning of the Anthropocene can result in the lack of consideration of its stratigraphic content and its concept. It conveys the opinion that units of the geologic time scale are defined solely by their beginnings, rather than their content.

Zalasiewicz et al. (2004, p. 1) argued that the distinction between chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units is no longer necessary because of the widespread adoption of GSSPs "in defining intervals of geologic time within rock strata." Because GSSPs are placed at stratigraphic horizons that also represent specific points in time, two successive GSSPs define an interval of time that is a geochronologic unit (period, epoch, age), and all strata interpreted as deposited during that interval of time would comprise the corresponding chronostratigraphic unit (system, series, stage). The difference between this concept and that espoused in the International Stratigraphic Guide (Salvador, 1994)-that chronostratigraphic units and their boundaries serve to define corresponding geochronologic units-is subtle, yet important. It is stratigraphic content that allows for the recognition and correlation of a chronostratigraphic unit. Most correlations are made within units and not to their boundaries. The GSSP serves to set a limit on the stratigraphic content of a unit; it defines a boundary, not a unit. Formal systems, series, and stages have been recognized since 1881, yet the first GSSP was not ratified until 1972. Obviously, chronostratigraphic units and their corresponding geochronologic units were used long before there were GSSPs. The International Stratigraphic Guide (Salvador, 1994) provides specific criteria for definition of chronostratigraphic units, but it provides no guidelines whatsoever for defining geochronologic units other than the intervals of time represented by the corresponding chronostratigraphic units. Furthermore, the guide discusses GSSPs only with regard to defining boundaries of chronostratigraphic units and not to defining beginnings or ends of geochronologic units. For these reasons, the concept and definition of chronostratigraphic units of Zalasiewicz et al. (2004), which are further presented in Zalasiewicz et al. (2008, 2011, 2015), are not consistent with the history of these units nor with the International Stratigraphic Guide.

The lower boundary of the Cretaceous System is not yet defined by a GSSP, and neither are the Lower Cretaceous Series and its constituent stages (Berriasian, Valanginian, Hauterivian, Barremian, Aptian, and Albian). Nevertheless, these are traditional units of the ICS Chart and thus are units of the geologic time scale. They have content. They can be correlated into stratigraphic successions worldwide. They have long been used worldwide. Their deficiency is that limits have not been formally set for their stratigraphic content. At an ICS workshop in 2010, the proposal of Zalasiewicz et al. (2004) was considered at length and rejected unanimously by the ICS voting members, who considered the distinction as unnecessary and obvious. It is of concern that this rejected concept is being followed by the Anthropocene working group and promoted in both scientific and public media.

The focus of proponents on the beginning of the Anthropocene has led to a misrepresentation by the leaders of the working group in the lead article (Waters et al., 2014b) of A Stratigraphical Basis for the Anthropocene (Waters et al., 2014a). The second paragraph states, "J. Phillips used the major mass extinction at the end of the Permian in 1840 to recognize the beginning of both the Triassic Period and of the Mesozoic Era." This statement is false. The Triassic was established in 1837, and Phillips (1840) focused on the term Palaeozoic. The term Mesozoic was used only once in a list contained within parentheses. In 1841, Phillips mentioned the Mesozoic only in one sentence:
The lower of these ..., the Magnesian Limestone formation, contains corals, brachiopoda, and fishes, so extremely similar in detail or analogous in their general history to the corresponding forms of the mountain-limestone, that it is impossible in any fair classification to sever this group of fossils from the Palæozoic series; while, on the other hand, the upper of the two formations, the Red-Sandstone and Keuper series, presents almost no resemblance to the older, but a decided analogy to the newer, or, as we wish to call it, Mesozoic series of the Oolites. (Phillips, 1841, p. 355)
Later, in his book Life on Earth: Its Origin and Succession, Phillips (1860, p. 64) described the prevalent fauna in each system as rising to a maximum and dying away to a final minimum to be followed again in the next system, with "the most remarkable of these zones of least life being the two that separate the Palaeozoic from the Mesozoic and the Mesozoic from the Cenozoic." Nowhere does Phillips (1860) mention a mass extinction as marking the beginning of the Triassic, and Phillips actually used his compilation of fossil data to argue against the theory of natural selection proposed the previous year by Charles Darwin. Yet, Waters et al. (2014b) cites Phillips (1840) to assert that human-induced changes to the stratigraphic record, although they are still yet to be recorded, are reason enough for officially recognizing the Anthropocene as a new unit on the geologic time scale. In fact, many, if not most, of the ratified GSSPs are at stratigraphic levels that do not represent major changes to the Earth system, whether geologic or biologic. For example, the bases of the Ordovician, Devonian, Carboniferous, and Permian systems are placed at the lowest occurrences of single graptolite or conodont species. They were chosen at stratigraphic levels within boundary intervals that offered the best potential for reliable, worldwide correlation. Waters et al. (2014b) also stated that units have historically been defined on significant events, when in reality it is the lack of definition of boundaries that has long plagued long-distance correlation of chronostratigraphic units. It is of concern that the history and nature of chronostratigraphic units have not been fairly conveyed.

Justification for defining the Anthropocene with a GSSA is found in the Holocene and the Precambrian. Repeated statements by Zalasiewicz et al. (2008, 2011, 2015) that the Holocene was defined by a GSSA are misleading. A formal definition of the Holocene with its base (beginning) defined by a GSSA was never approved by ICS nor ratified by IUGS; a numerical age of 10,000 ¹⁴ C yr B.P. was simply adopted by convention by the INQUA Holocene Commission, but it was then considered temporary (Walker et al., 2015). For the Precambrian, ICS adopted a set of numerical ages for the definition of boundaries between Archean and Proterozoic Eons and between their constituent eras (Remane et al., 1996). However, during these eons and eras, voluminous stratigraphic records accumulated and extensive bodies of plutonic and metamorphic rock were generated. Rock-based temporal classifications were established for each shield area long ago, but global units defined by isotopic ages allowed for a global standard time scale. The GSSAs were set at large round numbers, but those exact values cannot be located precisely in stratigraphic sections. Remane et al. (1996) considered them as theoretical postulates and pointed out their status only for boundary definition in the Precambrian. Today, the ICS Subcommission on Precambrian Stratigraphy is striving to replace the units defined by GSSAs with units defined by GSSPs, considering the latter to be more useful (Van Kranendonk et al., 2008). It is of concern that proponents of the Anthropocene do not fully explain the origin and concept of GSSAs.

The Nature and Utility of the Anthropocene

The Anthropocene, as currently popularized, is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are the charge of the ICS. It is the present and future versus the past. Events and effects and impact are observed, measured, and documented by humans as they occur and are dated with the Gregorian calendar (Wolff, 2014), and geologic events are too (e.g., 1906 San Francisco earthquake, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens). The stratigraphic record is the past. It is studied in order to interpret past events in Earth's history, and these interpretations require the application of stratigraphic techniques, concepts, and principles. In spite of this detachment of the Anthropocene from the concept and use of chronostratigraphic units, the term Anthropocene may have utility. It is popular among a diverse scientific community, social scientists, and the media. It does raise awareness that, as with anthropogenic climate change, the human impact on the Earth system is global, and that human impact may have initiated a cascade of events that will greatly alter Earth's surface, oceans, and atmosphere.

The term Anthropocene is of similar character to the term Renaissance. Both refer to richly documented, revolutionary, human activities that are dated in the Gregorian calendar. Both carry significant connotation. Although a precise date in calendar years is not specified for the Renaissance, the term is established and conveys a singular meaning of the content of that period, where it began, how it evolved, and how it spread. The same applies to Anthropocene if its concept is the human impact on Earth's surface. Without doubt, scholars have argued over the singular human creation, whether in literature, architecture, or art, that initiated the Renaissance, but there is no need to define its beginning, because the dates and locations of the creations are well established. Furthermore, it would be contrary to current practice to define its beginning at a single point in time because it is a cultural movement that is not tied to a single date. The same is true for the Anthropocene, whether it is a hydroelectric dam constructed in the Italian Alps, a gold mine in South Africa, the dramatic increase in carbon combustion during the Industrial Revolution, the growth of a megacity, the clearing of rain forests, or the increase in CO ₂ in the atmosphere and the resulting increase in global surface temperatures. Is putting an official beginning on the Anthropocene any more advantageous than on the Renaissance? The only reason appears to be to give it credence as a unit of the geologic time scale.

The year 1945, proposed as the beginning of the Anthropocene, was selected because it marks the first atomic bomb explosion that initiated a period of atmospheric testing, the results of which are seen in radionuclides in ice cores and lake cores. The radio-nuclides in cores can be taken as the stratigraphic signal that most closely coincides with what has been termed the great acceleration of human impact on the Earth system (Steffen et al., 2007). That stratigraphic signal first becomes evident in deposits from 1952 to 1960, the years of extensive atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs (Waters et al., 2015). Clearly, much of the human impact used as evidence of the Anthropocene predates 1945 (e.g., Zalasiewicz et al., 2011; Waters et al., 2014b). The same would be the case with the term Renaissance, if it was arbitrarily but objectively defined by the year 1500, when the influence of the Renaissance spread from Italy to the rest of Europe. It would result in the first works of the Renaissance being relegated to the Middle Ages. In this vein, Ruddiman et al. (2015) questioned whether or not it makes sense to define the start of the human-dominated time long after deforestation and agriculture changed the landscape and after greenhouse gases had been rising due to agricultural and industrial emissions. Proponents of the Anthropocene are thus left with the question of whether or not a beginning of the Anthropocene should be set and, if so, when. They must also consider how this affects the utility of the term as used not just by stratigraphers but also by other geologists, archaeologists, biologists, atmospheric chemists, and social scientists. Finally, it must be noted that with 1945 as the beginning, it would be a geologic time unit that presently has a duration of one average human life span.

Political Statement

When we explain the fundamental difference of the Anthropocene from the chronostratigraphic units established by the International Commission on Stratigraphy to proponents for its recognition, they often reply that the human impact on the Earth system must be officially recognized, if for no other reason than to make the public and governmental agencies aware of that impact. Or, as the editorial in Nature (2011) argued, official recognition would encourage cross-disciplinary science and a "mindset" to understand and to take control of the current transformation. However, it is political action that is required to meet the ultimate goals of ameliorating human impact, which raises the question of the ICS making a political statement. Pope Francis has spoken out about the human-induced impact on the Earth system-so too have leaders of many nations, the United Nations, and numerous non-governmental organizations. In California, Governor Jerry Brown has initiated and promoted many legislative actions with the goal of ameliorating human-induced impact. Is the role of the ICS to make such a political statement? Would official recognition of the term Anthropocene as a unit of the ICS Chart realistically have any effect on promoting cross-disciplinary science or recognizing that we are in the driver's seat as Nature editorialized? Or, is that not already the case?

The evolution of vascular land plants and their spread across the continents from late in the Devonian to early in the Permian completely altered Earth's surface, left a significant stratigraphic record, and dramatically altered CO ₂ and O ₂ concentrations in the atmosphere and oceans far greater than humans are projected to do (Berner and Canfield, 1989; Berner, 1998). Yet there is no drive to name a unit in the ICS Chart that formally recognizes that profound and irreversible change to the Earth system. Perhaps promotion of the Anthropocene is anthropocentric as well as political?

The "Atomic Age," a term coined by The New York Times journalist William L. Lawrence in September 1946, has an identical boundary and content to the Anthropocene proposal of Zalasiewicz et al. (2015). By rights, the Atomic Age has nomenclatural priority. If the Anthropocene is not a political statement, those who value priority should prefer the Atomic Age.

Conclusions Or The Way Forward

No formal, written proposal has yet been submitted by the Anthropocene working group to the ICS Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy. Until that happens, the ICS and the Quaternary Subcommission have nothing to consider, in spite of all that has been published by the members of the working group and by others in the scientific and public media. Assuming a formal proposal is made that recommends approval of an Anthropocene unit and boundary definition, that proposal will have to provide a detailed description of the stratigraphic content of the unit and show correlation of the lower-boundary GSSP to lake cores, ice cores, and other stratigraphic records from geographically widespread locations. It should also address questions on the concept, basis, and stratigraphic utility of the unit, such as those raised here and by Finney (2014), Head and Gibbard (2015), and Walker et al. (2015). It must consider the rank of the unit in light of the fact that its duration is that of an average human lifespan. Lastly, such a proposal should recognize that events of a proposed Anthropocene are those directly observed and precisely dated with human chronometers and calendars, and would not be interpreted from its marginal and impoverished stratigraphic record. The fundamental question that should be addressed in the proposal is this difference between the character of the Anthropocene and that of the chronostratigraphic units of the ICS chart.

Consideration of a proposal by the ICS Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy and possibly then by the entire ICS will involve extensive discussion among voting members. Such discussions educate the voting members as they study the proposal, and such discussion can and should be open to those who are not voting members. Indeed, this was the nature of the discussion in 2008-2009 that preceded the ICS vote on definition of the Quaternary System and redefinition of the Pleistocene series. It is hoped that the audience of this article becomes interested and contributes to the discussion. All opinions are welcome, but all positions and arguments are subject to challenge. It is in this manner that the ICS will give careful consideration to a formal proposal when submitted.

Acknowledgments

Brian Pratt and Phillip Gibbard provided reviews of the submitted manuscript. Earlier drafts were reviewed by Phillip Gibbard, Martin Head, and Mike Walker. We appreciate their thorough reviews and valuable suggestions. This article has been peer reviewed and approved for publication consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1367/).

References Cited

1. Al-Rousan, S., Pätzold, J., Al-Moghrabi, S., and Wefer, G., 2004, Invasion of anthropogenic CO2 recorded in planktonic foraminifera from the northern Gulf of Aquaba: International Journal of Earth Sciences, v. 93, p. 1066-1076, doi: 10.1007/s00531-004-0433-4.

2. Berner, R.A., 1998, The carbon cycle and CO2 over Phanerozoic time: The role of land plants: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, v. 353, p. 75-82, doi: 10.1098/rstb.1998.0192.

3. Berner, R.A., and Canfield, D.E., 1989, A new model of atmospheric oxygen over Phanerozoic time: American Journal of Science, v. 289, p. 333-361, doi: 10.2475/ajs.289.4.333.

4. Crutzen, P.J., 2002, Geology of mankind: Nature, v. 415, p. 23, doi: 10.1038/415023a.

5. Finney, S.C., 2014, The "Anthropocene" as a ratified unit in the ICS International Chronostratigraphic Chart: Fundamental issues that must be addressed by the task group, in Waters, C.N., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Ellis, M.A., and Snelling, A., eds., A Stratigraphical Basis for the Anthropocene: The Geological Society, London, Special Publication 395, p. 23-28.

6. Head, M.J., and Gibbard, P.L., 2015, Formal subdivision of the Quaternary System/Period: Past, present, and future: Quaternary International, v. 383, p. 4-35, doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.06.039.

7. Lewis, S.L., and Maslin, M.A., 2015, Defining the Anthropocene: Nature, v. 519, no. 7542, p. 171-180, doi: 10.1038/nature14258.

8. Marshall, W.A., Gehrels, W.R., Garnett, M.H., Freeman, S.P.H.T., Maden, C., and Xu, S., 2007, The use of "bomb spike" calibration and high-precision AMS 14C analyses to date salt marsh sediments deposited during the last three centuries: Quaternary Research, v. 68, p. 325-337, doi: 10.1016/j.yqres.2007.07.005.

9. Nature, 2011, Editorial: The human epoch: Nature, v. 473, p. 254, doi: 10.1038/473254a.

10. Nozaki, Y., Rye, D.M., Turekian, K.K., and Dodge, R.E., 1978, A 200 year record of carbon-13 and carbon-14 variations in a Bermuda coral: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 5, p. 825-828, doi: 10.1029/GL005i010p00825.

11. Phillips, J., 1840, Palaeozoic Series: The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, v. 17, p. 153-154.

12. Phillips, J., 1841, Saliferous System: The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, v. 20, p. 354-355.

13. Phillips, J., 1860, Life on the Earth, its Origin and Succession: Cambridge, Macmillan and Co., 224 p, doi: 10.5962/bhl.title.22153.

14. Remane, J., Bassett, M.G., Cowie, J.W., Gohrbandt, K.H., Lane, H.R., Michelsen, O., and Wang, N., 1996, Revised guidelines for the establish-ment of global chronostratigraphic standards by the International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS): Episodes, v. 19, p. 77-81.

15. Ruddiman, W.F., Ellis, E.C., Kaplan, J.O., and Fuller, D.Q., 2015, Defining the epoch we live in: Science, v. 348, no. 6230, p. 38-39, doi: 10.1126/science.aaa7297.

16. Salvador, A., 1994, International Stratigraphic Guide, 2nd edition: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America and International Union of Geological Sciences, 214 p.

17. Steffen, W., Crutzen, P.J., and McNeill, J.R., 2007, The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelmingly the great forces of nature?: Ambio, v. 36, p. 614-621, doi: 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[614:TAAHNO]2.0.CO;2.

18. Vai, G.B., 2004, The Second International Geological Congress, Bologna, 1881: Episodes, v. 27, p. 13-20.

19. Van Kranendonk, M.J., Gehling, J., and Shields, G., 2008, Precambrian, in Ogg, J.G., Ogg, G., and Gradstein, F.M., eds., The Concise Geologic Time Scale: New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 23-36.

20. Walker, M.J.C., Gibbard, P.L., and Lowe, J., 2015, Comment on "When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary is stratigraphically optimal" by Jan Zalasiewicz et al. (2015): Quaternary International, v. 383, p. 204-207, doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2015.04.007.

21. Waters, C.N., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Ellis, M.A., and Snelling, A., eds., 2014a, A Stratigraphical Basis for the Anthropocene: The Geological Society, London, Special Publication 395, 321 p.

22. Waters, C.N., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Ellis, M.A., and Snelling, A., 2014b, A stratigraphical basis for the Anthropocene? in Waters, C.N., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Ellis, M.A., and Snelling, A., eds., A Stratigraphical

23. Basis for the Anthropocene: The Geological Society, London, Special Publication 395, p. 1-21.

24. Waters, C.N., Syvitski, J.P.M., Gałuszka, A., Hancock, G.J., Zalasiewicz, J., Cearreta, A., Grinewald, J., Jeandel, C., McNeill, J.R., Summerhayes, C., and Barnosky, A., 2015, Can nuclear weapons fallout mark the beginning of the Anthropocene Epoch?: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, v. 71, p. 46-57, doi: 10.1177/0096340215581357.

25. Webby, B.D., 1998, Steps toward a global standard for Ordovician stratigraphy: Newsletters in Stratigraphy, v. 36, p. 1-33.

26. Wolff, E.W., 2014, Ice Sheets and the Anthropocene, in Waters, C.N., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Ellis, M.A., and Snelling, A., eds., A Stratigraphical Basis for the Anthropocene: The Geological Society, London, Special Publication 395, p. 255-263.

27. Zalasiewicz, J.A., Smith, A., Brenchley, P., Evans, J., Knox, R., Riley, N., Gale, A., Rushton, A., Gibbard, P., Hesselbo, S., Marshall, J., Oates, M., Rawson, P., and Trewin, N., 2004, Simplifying the stratigraphy of time: Geology, v. 32, p. 1-4, doi: 10.1130/G19920.1.

28. Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Smith, A., Barry, T.L., Coe, A.L., Bown, P.R., Brenchley, P., Cantrill, D., Gale, A., Gibbard, P., Gregory, F.J., Hounslow, M.W., Kerr, A.C., Pearson, P., Knox, R., Powell, J., Waters, C., Marshall, J., Oates, M., Rawson, P., and Stone, P., 2008, Are we now living in the Anthropocene?: GSA Today, v. 18, p. 4-8, doi: 10.1130/GSAT01802A.1.

29. Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Fortey, R., Smith, A., Barry, T.L., Coe, A.L., Bown, P.B., Rawson, P.F., Gale, A., Gibbard, P., Gregory, F.J., Hounslow, M.W., Kerr, A.C., Pearson, P., Knox, R., Powell, J., Waters, C., Marshall, J., Oates, M., and Stone, P., 2011, Stratigraphy of the Anthropocene: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, v. 369, p. 1036-1055, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0315.

30. Zalasiewicz, J., Waters, C.N., Williams, M., Barnosky, A.D., Cearreta, A., Crutzen, P., Ellis, E., Ellis, M.A., Fairchild, I.J., Grinevald, J., Haff, P.K., Hajdas, I., Leinfelder, R., McNeill, J., Odada, E.O., Poirier, C., Richter, D., Steffen, W., Summerhayes, C., Syvitski, J.P.M., Vidas, D., Wagreich, M., Wing, S.L., Wolfe, A.P., An, Z., and Oreskes, N., 2015, When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal: Quaternary International, doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.045.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The "Anthropocene" epoch: Scientific decision or political statement?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Full Text View Volume 26 Issue 3 (March/April 2016) GSA Today Article, pp. 4-10 | Abstract | PDF (432KB) Stanley C. Finney*, Lucy E. Edwards** 1 Dept. of Geological Sciences, California State University at Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90277, USA 2 U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Having read Malm and Hornborg's piece first, I found myself replacing the word ‘anthropogenic’ by ‘sociogenic’ in my head every time it popped up in Moore’s text (almost 30 times). It was a useful exercise. I believe the term 'sociogenic' (proposed by Malm and Hornborg) is better suited to account for the asymmetric distribution of resources and power that is at the core of the emergence and endurance of the fossil fuel economy.

María José Jordán (685585)

# data[].attributes.body
After reading Malms & Horborg, I can understand that the potential catastrophe due to climate change is multi-factors. Some humans bear more responsibilities of making the causes, however the effects are deemed to all mankind, non-human, and environment. I think reinforcement of law and policies in respective country is utterly important to keep the distribution of responsibility fair, aim for the greater goods, create good governance. - Surya (694529)

# data[].attributes.body
One aspect of the reading I found quite interesting to think about was about the weight of ecological responsibility different people/ nations etc carry for climate change. A large part of the discussion on the topic is about who will be most affected, and it is widely acknowledged that those who have the least negative ecological impact and the global poor will be those most affected by climate change. The term sustainability is somewhat a fallacy, as sustaining what has happened and what is happening is not possible without leading to further destruction, and seems to be a blanket term, which leads to greenwashing and prevents actual change and policy that could help. This allows those least affected by climate change to continue to think they are having an impact by buying sustainably sourced products etc, without thinking too hard about their actions and those who would be most impacted (for example, Ben Shapiro’s infamous assertion that those who live on coastlines and are at risk of losing their homes to rising sea levels can just sell their homes and move, without considering whether there may not be anyone to sell said homes to, nor the funds to move elsewhere). Nordic countries are seen as advanced and pioneering in sustainability, but this article has lead me to believe this may simply be the result of excellent PR. Norway (and other affluent nations) are educated and informed, but privilege enables them to feel separate from the real impact of climate change.

Georgia Colgrave 685469

# data[].attributes.body
I find it interesting that the reading shows Marshall Islanders adopting a "self blame" approach to climate change. I would perceive it as self responsibility. Even though they are aware of themselves being smaller than other countries they do see how they are harming the environment as a community and discuss a proactive approach on how it can be resolved. I think it is an evolved way of thinking about climate change. I also liked the teachers example about drawing on a white canvas and no matter how small your drawing is it still has an impact on the bigger picture. Vedika (695002)

# data[].attributes.headline
Cultural Constructions of Person Responsibility and Sustainability

# data[].attributes.subject
Cultural Constructions of Person Responsibility and Sustainability

# data[].attributes.body
I found many parallels from the constructed sustainable self in the Norwegian cultural conscious as I do in my home state of California.  Californians often identify themselves as "Californians"-separate from the "American" cultural signifier that might attach them to U.S. imperialism, or outsized impact on global climate change. Its self-serving of course, but we are also shaped to believe that we live in a state that values its natural environment-we are provided fodder to help ease guilt and help us deal with the realities of Climate Change that face us on a yearly basis in the form of a nearly 7 month fire season.   In reality, California has an agricultural economy that has completely reshaped the topography of the state, emptied its largest lakes and has left the destruction of indigenous food systems in its wake.  4 of the five most polluted cities in the US sit in Californias bread basket, the San Joaquin Valley.  I also believe that it is apparent in both the case of both Norway and California, there is a sort of purposefully constructed distance between the Rural and the urban where the decisions are made to pump oil or serve corporate economic interests over environmental interests. It serves the interest of the individual who may be able to feign responsibility with a statement like, "I only worry about the things I can control" as seems to be the case for absolving oneself of guilt attached to oil production and privilege in Rural Norway, and  perhaps the ability of people in "liberal enclaves" like San Francisco to detach their own privilege from something like the subjugation of farm laborers to plantation industrial agriculture systems. 687088

# data[].attributes.body
I find myself agreeing with much of what Malms & Hornborg have questioned in their paper; particularly that is it the specific social and cultural relationships that a minority of humankind have developed with their growing use of fossil fuels and energy consumption that is a necessary frame to the climate change discussions today. From my understanding, this frame for climate change then places the responsibility of change and sustainability on the privileged minority as opposed to the anthropocentric framework which places responsibility on humankind as a whole. Whilst the points made by Malms & Hornborg are extremely insightful, I question then how then we approach solutions for sustainable futures as a privileged minority. Culturally and socially, how would our relationship with fossil fuels have to shift, and who has the power to do this – the individual? Companies?
(Roshni 637370)

# data[].attributes.headline
Geostories: A Rhetorical Argument for the Anthropocene

# data[].attributes.subject
Geostories: A Rhetorical Argument for the Anthropocene

# data[].attributes.body
Moore's analysis of the rhetorical use of the term 'Anthropocene' forces to rethink the way in which international organizations like the IPCC frame the issue of climate change. The argument that I find particularly interesting from an anthropological perspective is where she argues that "an attention to narrative may appear to abandon a commitment to material processes, I argue that such stories help constitute ecologies and socialities by bringing them into new kinds of socioecological and ecobiopolitical (earthly) relation." Defining the Anthropocene as being an 'era' where human species-being impact their natural environment in an unprecedented way doesn't entail that we understand the human species-being as being one single political or even cultural entity. Rather, this argument shows the multiple ways in which we  seem to 'naturalise' our (social, political, cultural and economical) relation to our natural environment. Acknowledging the anthropological relevance of these geostories also constitutes the first step to an anthropology of sustainability. (694741)

# data[].attributes.body
Malm and Horborg highlight a really interesting point about environmental privilege and the differentiated vulnerability on all scales of human society concerning the impact of climate change. The Anthropocene accepts that culture is an entity that has the ability to manipulate and alter nature. However, this assumes that individuals have equal agency to alter nature. The Anthropocene has a tendency to perpetuate racial bias by ignoring race and providing an exclusionary white view.
Amy, 694871.

# data[].attributes.body
I found the Noorgard article incredibly well written and provocative, forcing us to face some uncomfortable realities of the psychology of sustainability. But that being said I would have loved for her to say a bit more about what this means for privileged communities (or even countries) that are not as isolated as Bygdaby. I see the connections she is drawing between the attitudes and tendencies towards climate denial or ambivalence in other western countries and I agree with her that the study in Bygdaby reaches conclusions that are applicable to other places of environmental privilege. But I didn't feel that she touched enough on how in many ways their degree of isolation in the sense that they are a rural community that doesn’t seem to pay too much attention to world news is a bit of an extenuating circumstance, I feel this clouds the parallels she draws.

# data[].attributes.body
Something that struck me from Malm and Hornborg's review is the relationship between the growth of capitalism and climate change. Whilst they briefly talk about this in their extract and it not being their core basis of their argument. The evidence of the 'richest 7% [of the human population] produced 50% of emissions' compared to 'the poorest 45% of the human population accounted for 7% of emissions'. Is it fair to say that the growth in capitalism and individual wealth has led to the increase in climate change?
Rammiyan, 696524.

# data[].attributes.body
From my personal research the last few years, it became apparent to me that the perpetuation of social injustices were primarily due to a lack of empathy and/or ignorance (the former fuelling the latter of vice versa has been argued).

This was a refreshing read, as it allowed me to self assess my preconceptions and social constructions in this area: ‘In today’s globalised risk society such perceptions of near and far, immediate or abstract are politically charged social constructions.’

I was also really intrigued, however not surprised, by the ramifications of normalising climate change and its cause of transnational privilege.

695875

# data[].attributes.headline
simultaneously disturbing and invisible 

# data[].attributes.subject
simultaneously disturbing and invisible 

# data[].attributes.body
I found Noorgard's paradox that climate change is both disturbing and invisible extremely powerful. I suppose it goes against this idea that because Norwegians have a generally good quality of life and are in many ways privileged, they should tackle climate change issues from a place of safety and security. instead, those for whom climate change is not invisible are the ones dealing with its effects and consequences. (685899)

# data[].attributes.body
Eliza Hamer 686948
Malm and Hornburg's strong approach to the word 'anthropocene' is insightful. They point to a universal culture and nature, and universal climate change, places and people. "The ‘Anthropocene’ registers this moment of epiphany: the power to shape planetary climate has passed from nature into the realm of humans."

Humans as an all encompassing term- This  highlights the potential bias in the definition of the word anthropocene and the role that environmental/ social/ racial/geographical/ economical plays to privilege when dealing with climate change. Is climate change a collective responsibility and a universal term or does it bring to the foreground the realities of differentiated vulnerability on all scales of human society?

# data[].attributes.headline
Prioritising and identifying the biggest contributors towards CO2 emission beyond region / geography would be an interesting exploration 

# data[].attributes.subject
Prioritising and identifying the biggest contributors towards CO2 emission beyond region / geography would be an interesting exploration 

# data[].attributes.body
The percentage breakdown of CO2 emissions, shared on Pg 3 focuses on the regional split. This got me thinking about the industry-wise breakdown of contributors. “Industry-wise” could include projects that range from “wants” to “needs”.* For instance, where does a global sport like Motor racing fit into this dialogue of CO2 emission contributors? Motor racing as a bucket includes over 50-100 different types of racing across automobiles. It’s not fossil fuel being burnt for need-focussed travel, instead, I’d like to go on a limb and say its for pure leisure and entertainment. (*The question of what’s a need vs want in this space of contributors is worth debating over)

Harish Subu 695003

# data[].attributes.body
There was so much to take away from this piece, and I found myself especially reflecting on 'Norway is small' as a justification for their lack of action on climate change. I felt that it spoke directly to a lot of discussions on individual action, where people justify a lack of action on climate change because, after all, what difference can one person make (e.g. what use is it for me to stop using plastic bags when most ocean pollution is created by the fishing industry)? Whilst this is definitely a relevant point, the article caused me to reflect on the fact that this might actually be a 'tool of innocence' to let myself off the hook individually, especially as a direct recipient of environmental privilege (having grown up in the UK). This is a somewhat unfinished thought, but I appreciate that Noorgard reinforces the need to be critical of our own position within debates on climate change. (695716)

# data[].attributes.body
I recommend this book by anthropologist Jason Hickel, his work on inequality and "development" were really useful for my understanding of responsibility within carbon emission and environmental changes by some "anthros" proposed by Malms and Hornborg. Interesting that Yasmine (694518) referred to him as well in response to Li Yunshan (694824).