ReinyDays
Gold Member
My guess is that by getting the term Anthropocene codified into the scientific lexicon, since it is "anthro," my guess is that their aim is to use it to track and blame human activity as somehow working against nature, something to be charted and regulated, fined and taxed, instead of just PART of nature.
Hey, green is fine, just that to do green realistically, you don't wait until the crisis is upon you, they should have started thinking about this stuff in the 1950s then, you begin instituting corrective actions as the technology and budgets allow rather than throw the baby out with the bath water turning civilization on its head trying to go totally green in ten years.
Climate change or not, people can only change things as fast as budgets and technology allow, and the cure cannot be worse than the problem. If mankind actually succeeds in becoming nearly carbon neutral and almost fossil fuel product free over the next 100 years, the Earth will effect its natural balancing and correcting systems and return the planet to 19th century conditions or whatever accordingly.
Orwellian New Speak ...
Holocene is useful ... the retreating ice sheet left behind specific geology ... so the model is good for 50,000 to 75,000 years ... until the ice sheets return ... how biology interacts with these geological features is best modeled as a bacterial film ... doesn't change rocks per se ...