If I had a vote, I would accept the Anthropogenic Epoch to the geological time scale, like both authors claim, the Anthropogenic Epoch roughly begins around the 19th century (Steffen 2; Kolbert 4). In the era of industrialization, the changes to the environment began at an exponential rate. In this era population began its frightening acceleration to where it is today, it is this population that burdens the environment and causes the whole Anthropogenic Epoch debate in the first place. With that, I disagree with Malm when he says that “If everyone is to blame, then no one is” (6). It is that mentality that drives down people’s ability to combat the Epoch. Although I believe in the Anthropogenic Epoch, Malm does have a point, in giving this era a name and saying that things are irreversible is ridiculous, things can be changed if only we stop thinking about it and labeling it, if only we act on it.
This need to fit in severely sets back and even blocks our ability to develop solutions for the problems of climate change just as Kahan states. Cathy Whitlock addressed this problem when speaking at the billings public library by advocating for more community involvement and planning, avoiding blaming Montana and telling them it’s still in their interests to solve the problem. I see Cathy Whitlock’s methods as heading in the right direction, take the blame off the community, people only resent being blamed. Another way to invoke more community involvement is to simplify the ways in which people could help, break t up, put people in a place, and let everything come together.
I think you bring up a good point that even if this era is labeled it wont have an effect on the work done. In order to make improvements it is up to consumers, governments and corporations to step up to the plate and make strides towards creating a bright future. But I wonder that if accepting the Anthropocene epoch will have any effect on pushing forward green initiatives and products. I guess we will just have to wait and see.