If I were on the International Commission of Stratigraphy and I had to vote whether to adopt the Anthropocene, I would vote yes. Through humanity’s use of the earth’s fossil fuels, atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen significantly and the planet dramatically changed (Steffen, pg. 2 and Kolbert, pg. 1). I find it fitting the Anthropocene is called “the epoch of humanity”, as humans are the force behind the changing world (Malm, pg.1). I believe the Anthropocene epoch should start with the Industrial Revolution. The steep increase in the use of fossil fuels beginning with industrialization led to an increase in human involvement in earth systems, which made an impact on the global environment (Steffen, pg. 4). I think the Anthropocene should be on the geological calendar beginning with the Industrial Revolution.
Kahan makes an interesting point that people view climate change based on their social peers. If the people you’re friends with believe in something (something polarizing like climate change) then you are likely to go along with their beliefs, so as not to be labeled as “other” (Kahan, pg.1). If a society is culturally polarized, it’s hard to enact change. Whitlock and her group combated this in Montana by not using the phrase “climate change”, instead asking farmers and others about changes they’ve experienced. The group also talked to diverse groups of people to understand different viewpoints regarding climate change. I think one way of talking to people about climate change is relating it to their surroundings. It can be difficult for people to understand or talk about something that doesn’t directly “relate” to them. Climate change relates to everyone, but it’s not always seen that way. Relating to people in a way they understand and respond to is a good way to talk about climate change.