Veganuary

You might have heard of Stoptober and Dry January, which are well known schemes to promote a healthier lifestyle for a month by quitting smoking and giving up alcohol respectively. This week I was introduced to the equally catchy scheme, Veganuary.

Yes you've guessed it, Veganuary promotes becoming vegan for the month of January and I've already made my pledge. 

Before you start to wonder what on Earth me giving up animal products for a month has to do with Man vs Earth, after spending a whole term blogging about the harmful impacts humans have had on our planet, it is probably time I do something to try and help. 

It seems pretty unusual to some people, but I was brought up as a vegetarian because neither of my parents eat meat. Although I would like to think I never strayed from being a vegetarian due to environmental and ethical motivations, it is probably due to habit that I have never bothered to eat meat. Going vegan is a way I can challenge myself a little further and try to reduce my direct influence on the environment.

Although the primary aims of Veganuary are to reduce suffering of animals and try out a healthier diet, the knock on effects of adopting the lifestyle could decrease your impact on the environment more than giving up flying or driving.

Let's look at the facts:

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) found in January 2014 that 14.5% of global greenhouse emissions come from livestock production. This leads on to research done at Cornell University which shows that it takes 40 calories of fossil fuel energy to create 1 calorie of food energy from beef, in comparison to the 2.2 calories it takes in fossil fuels to produce 1 calorie of food energy from edible grains. It is clearly more sustainable to switch meat for plant produce. A vegan diet could more than half your greenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) approximately 30% of biodiversity loss is due to livestock farming. It has been estimated by Rainforest Concern that 200 square metres of forest is destroyed to produce every 1lb of beef. As we have seen, we could be heading towards a 6th global mass extinction, but cutting out animal products will help to prevent this.

The way I see it, veganism tackles the biggest problems the globe is facing. Firstly, cutting out animal products from human diet can aid food security by leaving us with more grain for humans than for livestock. Secondly, producing less meat and dairy reduces emissions and in turn can counter climate change. Finally, losses of biodiversity can be prevented if there is less habitat destroyed for farm land. So while you are all enjoying your Christmas dinners, gorging on turkey and pigs in blankets (or nut roast in my case), please consider giving up one month of meat and dairy to test out the vegan diet and do your bit to reduce environmental damage.

Merry Christmas and wish me luck in the new year!

. 

Go to way of the dodo

This week my friends and I have done what I'm sure every group of twenty-somethings do regularly - we went on trips to two different zoos. It doesn't help our case that neither trip involved taking children for a day out, but when you are interested in conservation, who needs an excuse? 

Although I managed to see my first elephants and white rhinos, which were both stunning, I was shocked by how many of the species I saw are under threat at our own hand.

Throughout Man vs Earth we have already examined the loss of megafauna approximately 40,000 years ago, the cause of these extinctions, and the idea we are entering a 6th mass extinction. However we have not yet looked into localised extinctions happening in recent years.

As we have seen, humans have played a part in altering the climate on Earth, which is having knock on effects on the rest of the planet's ecology. On a more local scale, many other human interactions with biodiversity can lead to extinctions. Let's take a look at just a few of the many examples of species that have been threatened to the point of extinction by human influences:

White Rhino's are a well-known example as a species that were hunted widely for their horns for both medical and decorative purposes across Asia and North Africa. Now there are only 6 Northern white rhino individuals left in the wild. 

As the phrase 'to go the way of the dodo' suggests, dodos were a species that were famously over-hunted by humans to the point of extinction, originally an endemic species of Mauritius.

Threats to biodiversity aren't always direct, in 2007 the Yangtze River dolphin, the baiji, was found to be extinct due to over-fishing and construction of the Three Gorges Dam. 

Although the dodo and baiji were localised species, even far-spread successful species can fall at the hand of humans. The passenger pigeon fell from 3 billion to extinction due to over-hunting. The last individual died just over 100 years ago in the Cincinnati zoo. You can read more about each of these extinctions in The Scientific American.

Human-influenced climate change is another anthropogenic factor contributing to the decline of many species. In some cases climate has a direct influence on the survival of a species. In 2012, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considered 20 species to have undergone extinction due to direct impacts of climate change. These include factors such as change in ground, water and air temperature, as well as precipitation. One example is the Aldabra banded snail whose decline correlated to increased dry periods on the Aldabra atoll (Justin Gerlach, 2007). Although originally assumed extinct, the Aldabra banded snail which was found to still exist this year, demonstrating that whilst climate change is capable of causing direct declines in species number, it is not the driving mechanism of extinction.

Indirect influences of climate change can cause extinctions through species interaction; either negative implications affect the focal species through the loss of food source, or positive impacts on pathogens or competitors which thrive under increased temperatures, are detrimental to the focal species. It is concluded by Abigail E. Cahill et al, 2012, that these climate-influenced species interactions are the major cause of species extinction.

The IUCNs red list is the most extensive list of globally threatened species and therefore plays an important role in influencing conservation practices. The 2014 assessment recognizes 5,103 near threatened species, 10,838 vulnerable species, 6,940 endangered species and 4,635 critically endangered species. However, as I mentioned in Man vs Earth on 17th November in 'Is this a mass extinction?', limitations to understanding the threat to species are realised as very few modern animal clades have been sufficiently assessed. Currently, the Global Species Program run by the IUCN has data for 73,000 species, of the 1.8 million species recognised globally (Michael Begon, 2006), and of the estimated 8.8 million species that could inhabit Earth (Camilo Moro et al, 2011).

The groups better represented by IUCN assessment include mammals and birds. A group poorly represented are the amphibians, thought to be analogous to the 'canary in the mine' as an indicator of climate change impacts on biodiversity. Simon N. Stuart et al, 2004, explain that amphibians are more at risk, and therefore declining more rapidly, than birds and mammals. Poor understanding of the threat to these species only exacerbates the potential for widespread amphibian extinctions. 

Percentages of threatened species of vertebrates, invertebrates and plants from IUCN 2002 data. M, mammals; B, birds; R, reptiles; A, amphibians; F, fish. I, insects; M, mollusks; C, crustaceans; O, others. M, mosses; G, gynosperms; D, dycotyledons; Mo, monocotyledons. Taken from Global State of Biodiversity and Loss (Rodolfo Dirzo and Peter H. Razen, 2003).

Rodolfo Dirzo and Peter H Razen estimated that approximately 20% could have been threatened in 2002. The real figure could be much higher but only a small proportion of the species have been assessed. They also estimate that threatened plants were seriously underrepresented.

To protect the future of biodiversity we need to act faster to identify more of the world's unknown species or we will lose them before we even find them.

Watch this space

In relation to my last post, a friend of mine has also written a great list of eco-friendly Christmas present ideas, this time with an ocean friendly focus, check it out here - http://oceancommocean.blogspot.co.uk/

Secondly, I've got exciting news! Watch this space because in January I will be presenting a radio show with UCL's student radio station Rare Fm. The show will be all about 'Man vs Earth' and I will be discussing some of the most important points this blog has covered.

You can listen live to the station at http://www.rarefm.co.uk/

Check back soon for more details.

Let's have an eco friendly Christmas

I may be getting too festive and posting this a bit early - I will admit I have already decorated my room and starting sending cards - but who doesn't love Christmas? Let's take a break from the serious side of this blog and look at my top 5 environmentally friendly Christmas presents to buy this year. We know what sort of damage humans have caused on Earth, so this year lets try and spread the word along with the spirit of Christmas. 

Now its officially December - you can't stop me!

1. Grow me and help save the planet - Nigel's eco store

What could make a better stocking filler that a tree in a bag, all for under a tenner! Set up the bag on your windowsill and start to grow a birch tree inside. When the tree is large enough you can move it into the ground outside where the biodegradable packaging will be absorbed back into the soil. As the tree grows it helps to offset your carbon footprint by taking in CO2. Everyone's a winner, only £5.99.

2. The Christmas Penguin bubble bar - LUSH 

This cute penguin makes for a guilt free bubble bath as none of the ingredients have been tested on animals. The whole range of Christmas toiletries available at lush are adorable and even better, all the glitter used to make these products extra festive is made from safe natural ingredients rather than plastic. Save your pennies and the environment at only £3.25!

3. Adopt a beehive - Nigel's eco store

We all know how important bees are for pollinating most of the fruit, vegetables and nuts we eat, but they are suffering from pesticides and viruses. Signing up one of your friends or family members to adopting a share in a hive is a fantastic way to promote the survival of bees. They will learn how to take car of a hive and be generously rewarded in honey. Only £29.99 for the year.

4. Fair trade Dark Chocolate coated Ginger biscuits - Traidcraft

Treat your friends to this perfect Christmas treat from Trade Craft. Knowing that everyone involved gets a fair deal will surely make them taste even better? Only £3.95, you can afford to get one for everyone you know. 

5. Recycled pet bed - Protect the planet 

Last but not least, what's the one thing I love more than Christmas? Probably my pets. So when treating your family to a perfect eco friendly gift don't leave out your furry friends...
Push the boat out at £49.99.

Climate Change

When it comes to climate change, I'm sure none of my readers are strangers to the fact that global warming is happening, and human populations, as well as the rest of Earth's biodiversity, are threatened by these changes. But what is the real cause of our rising global temperature? Is it just part of the natural pattern of historic climatic fluctuations, or are these rapidly changing conditions predominantly based on human interactions with the environment?

'Climate: causes and effects of climate change' by Dana Desonie, 2007, highlights the variety of impacts that can cause climate change, both human and natural. More recently, David I. Stern and Robert K. Kaufmann's report 'Anthropogenic and Natural Causes of Climate Change' was published in Climatic Change, 2014, which aims to test for causality in the relationship between anthropogenic activity and climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published the 'Climate Change Synthesis Report' in 2014, chaired by Rajendra K. Pachauri. This report found that between 1983 and 2012 average temperatures rose 0.85 degrees. Climate change refers to the average changing temperature over time. This change in temperature is predicted to continue to rise.

Human

Economic and population growth fuels greenhouse gas emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Greenhouse gas emissions have been rising from 1970 to 2010, and are arguably the most significant human influence over climate change. The IPCC also found that between 1970 and 2010, the release of C02 from burning fossil fuels accounted for 78% of total greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is produced by rice production and animal farming, and it is believed 60% of emissions come from these anthropogenic activities. The report concludes that it is 'extremely likely' human greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for half of the increase in global temperatures since the 50s. Emissions aren't the only way humans are altering the climate, land use changes impact the Albedo effect and evapo-transpiration rates of the landscape. Furthermore, air pollution can filter incoming solar radiation, a process known as global dimming. This has a cooling affect, however global warming is the dominating process at present.

Climate

On the other hand, throughout Earth's history climate has continuously fluctuated, which could explain the rising temperatures apparent today. 

One reason for this is solar variation, the discontinuous output of the sun. The solar output has been gradually increasing which would be mirrored by rising temperatures on Earth. However, early in Earth's history higher levels of CO2 and consequential greenhouse warming meant temperatures were similar to today. 

Milankovitch cycles, referring to the position of the Earth respective to the sun, are another natural driver of climate change. Solar radiation reaching Earth can vary by up to 25% depending on Earth's position. Ice ages are a function of these cycles.

Since the 1950s the energy output of the sun has not varied in a way to produce the increase in global temperatures recorded from this time, furthermore, as explained at climate.nasa.gov, climatic changes are demonstrated by warming at the Earth's surface and cooling in the upper atmosphere, which does not represent an increase of solar output. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that humans are having a direct effect on Earth's climate.

Mass extinctions

To follow up last weeks post, I've found a video that runs through the big 5 mass extinctions and considers whether we are entering a 6th mass extinction. Watch it here for more information: 

Is this a mass extinction?

Extinction is the last evolutionary process any species undergoes. Extinction is so common it has been estimated that about 99% of species to ever have evolved on our planet have been lost. This level of extinction is generally balanced by the origination of new species. However, during Earth's history there have been 5 events classified as mass extinctions; a relatively short period of time during which 75% of species are lost. It is argued that the number and rate of species losses we are experiencing currently could be so high that we are entering a 6th global mass extinction. Recently, Anthony D. Barnosky explored whether current biodiversity is trending towards a 6th global mass extinction in 'Has the Earth's 6th mass extinction already arrived?' published in Nature in 2011.

Position in time of the big 5 mass extinctions

To understand whether we are undergoing a mass extinction event already, or if we are on track towards one in the near future, it is important to first examine the definition of a mass extinction. By defining a mass extinction, we can make comparisons between past mass extinctions and our rate of extinctions today.

Jack Sepkoski defined a mass extinction as 'any substantial increase in the amount of extinction (i.e. lineage termination) suffered by more than one geographically wide-spread higher taxon during a relatively short interval of geologic time, resulting in an at least temporary decline in their standing diversity' in 'A Phanerozoic overview of mass extinctions', 1986. In more general terms, a mass extinction event involves a magnitude and a rate, and most palaeontologists classify a mass extinction as the loss of 3/4 of Earth's species in a short geological time.

Estimates for the total number of species on Earth demonstrate a wide range, from 3 million to 100 million. One of the most widely accepted estimates to fall within this range is 8.7 million species, which was proposed by Camilo Mora, et al. in 'How many species are there on Earth and in the Ocean?', 2011. This total number is falling. Stuart L. Pimm predicted a current extinction rate of 20-200 E/MSY (extinctions per million species year), which is 100-1000 times greater than the rate apparent in the fossil record (The Future of Biodiversity, 1995)

As already demonstrated in older blog posts, modern day losses of biodiversity are being worsened by humans; by hunting, clearing habitats and moving species geographically. If these losses are pushing us into a mass extinction event, this could be one of the largest effects of Man on Earth's geology, and a true signature of the Anthropocene.

When trying to compare modern and historical biodiversity, very few groups have adequate records. The fossil record for example is very inconsistent and only few groups of modern animals have been sufficiently assessed, such as mammals, amphibians and birds. Therefore theoretical predictions relating losses of habitat area to losses of species are used. We also have to take into account not only species that have recently gone extinct, but those that are threatened. Barnosky found, using models assuming that all of our threatened species inevitably die out, we could reach big 5 mass extinction levels within 3 centuries. This comes as a warning cry for conservation needs.

Megafauna extinction: Man or climate?

Next up in the fight between Man and Earth: overhunting and climate change battle it out to see who was responsible for the extinction of Pleistocene Megafauna.

Size comparison of mega fauna

Megafauna are giant animals, typically weighing more than 44kg, that were successful across Eurasia, America and Australia during the Pleistocene (which lasted from 2.6 - 0.1 million years ago). The Quaternary extinction event saw the loss of many of these large beasts, at the same time as the last ice age. The extinctions of animals such as giant kangeroos, woolly mammoths, bear sized wombats and huge armadillos spanned from 40,000 years ago to as recently as 10,000 years ago. 

Woolly Mammoth

The last American glacial maximums were between 30,000 - 14,000 years ago in North America and 12,500 - 11,800 years ago in South America, as discussed in 'American megafaunal extinctions'. The latest ice age in Australia reached a maximum around 21,000 years ago. Climate is therefore a strong contender for the changing conditions and subsequent loss of life during the Megafauna extinction event. 

It is however no coincidence that humans were radiating out of Africa at this time, from around 70,000 years ago, spreading through Asia, Australia and finally America where tribes set up in megafauna territories. Africa has retained many species of megafauna, unlike in other continents, which could be because the species here had longer to learn and adapt to homo sapiens, whereas other encounters between man and megafauna across the globe happened more rapidly, giving species less time to adapt. The human hunting of these large targets is a likely cause of their extinction.

Migration pattern of homo sapiens out of Africa

Humans are thought to have contributed to extinctions due to factors other than hunting; human lit fires, which in Australia are believed to have been used to clear pathways through the bush, are another way humans could have impacted the climate and habitat of the areas they first colonised. This was discussed by Cheryl Jones in 'Early humans wiped out Australia's giants', 2010.

Controversially, Research led by the University of New South Wales last year suggests that megafauna extinctions in Australia were caused by climate change alone, rather than human influences. They state there is a lack of evidence of that humans hunted megafauna, and that by the time Aboriginal tribes arrived in Australia there were less than 20 megafauna species left. 

This is where the timing of extinctions and arrival of homosapiens becomes important; if the majority of megafaunal extinctions happened before humans emerged from Africa then climate change must have been the cause of extinction. Although if the emergence of homo sapiens matches the time these giant species went extinct then humans could be responsible. 

It may be that the onset of a colder climate had already altered vegetation and reduced the number of viable habitats, threatening larger species, but hunting by humans was the final blow. The two factors go hand in hand as climate change may have been the driving force of human migrations out of Africa.

The global scientific gathering met earlier this year to discuss this topic at the Oxford megafauna conference. They concluded that hunting by humans was a 'decisive factor' in the megafauna extinctions.

Want to see what some of these giant beasts would have looked like? Check out the megafauna video.

Golden Spike of the Anthropocene

William Ruddiman, a palaeoclimatologist and big name in the Anthropocene debate, identifies the beginning of the Anthropocene as 8000 years ago, in his paper 'The Anthropogenic era began thousands of years ago', 2003. Conversely, Paul Crutzen places the beginning of this new geological epoch much more recently, at the start of the Industrial revolution in the 18th century. At some point in the history of humans, our activity on Earth became significant enough to consider ourselves in a human-caused geological time. So when is this golden spike for the Anthropocene?

The earliest proposed start to the Anthropocene is 50,000 years ago, coinciding with megafauna extinctions, and global human colonisation. The megafauna extinction event saw the loss of many large mammals, as described by the Australian Museum. Robin McKie, science editor for The Guardian, argued in 'What killed off the giant beasts - climate change or man?', 2014, that these extinctions resulted from contributing factors of climate and human activity, at the end of the last ice age. Human hunting of these giant mammals is therefore one of the first anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity on Earth leading to changes in our geology.

Erle Ellis argues that the Anthropocene starts later than this. By 8,000 years ago, with only 'a population of just 10 million or so' the use of agriculture and fire to clear forests had 'altered as much as a fifth of Earth's ice-free land' (Forget Mother Nature: this is a world of our making, 2011). Early farmers without means to plough their land had to move on frequently to more fertile fields, leaving previously cultivated areas in various stages of recovery. This activity created the first 'anthromes' or anthropogenic biomes. By the industrial revolution 'more than half of the terrestrial biosphere had been converted into anthromes', so our impact had already been made on the atmosphere and soil sediments. Today around 38% of terrestrial land is used for farming (Age of man). Similarly, in William Ruddimans' opinion, the early use of agriculture released enough Co2 to prevent another ice age, meaning humans have been the greatest geological force on Earth since the start of the Holocene. Both Ellis and Ruddiman would place the golden spike of the Anthropocene at the dawn of agriculture, potentially replacing the Holocene altogether.

On the other Hand, Paul Crutzen argues in his work The Anthropocene, 2006, that the European industrial revolution marks the significant turning point in human impacts on Earth, 'coinciding with James Watt's design of the steam engine in 1784'. Since the industrial revolution, the burning of fossil fuels and release of Co2 have been represented in ice cores as an 'uninterrupted rise' of carbon dioxide levels. Based on atmospheric composition, the 18th century could mark the greatest change in geology and be seen as the start of the Anthropocene.

The International Union of Geological Sciences will have the final say, who will aim to decide by 2016 whether the Anthropocene will replace the Holocene.

Action costs heavily, inaction costs more

This week I attended a talk by the Renewable Energy Foundation on 'Thermo-economics' - meaning how energy links to economic debate. The presentation focused on why government renewable energy subsidies are unsustainable. However, this week's Climate Change 2014 synthesis report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sums up my feelings on the matter entirely. Making headlines such as 'rapid carbon emission cuts vital to stop severe impact of climate change' and 'fossil fuels should be phased out by 2100' the point of the report couldn't be more clear. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Our use of fossil fuels and emissions of carbon have to be seriously cut to prevent irreversible climate change on Earth. Although government subsidies may be raising the future price of household energy bills, I would personally rather pay more for energy than run out entirely. We need to prioritise our planet over our pockets. BBC news states: 'The UN said inaction would cost ''much more'' than taking the necessary action'. Cost doesn't only refer to economics. 

'Severe, widespread and irreversible impacts' is the tagline to remember from the report. The need to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewables is real and urgent. Does this outweigh the need for emerging economies to develop without restrictions, such as England during its industrial revolution? I believe so.

Although a bit off topic, the report makes an interesting read and covers a matter I think should be at the forefront of all economic and environmental debate.

Are we living in the Anthropocene? - Part 2

Google the Anthropocene and you will be overwhelmed by news articles and research into this newly proposed geological time – my latest blog post being somewhere down the list. I wanted to explore both sides of the argument that we are living in a human-influenced geological time, but there was just too much to squeeze into one post. I have already highlighted arguments in support of the Anthropocene but now let’s take a look at why we might all be jumping on the Anthropocene band wagon a little too quickly…

Harmful human impacts on Earth paint such a negative picture it’s hard not to hand yourself straight over to the Anthropocene. We have become far too accustomed to hopelessly accepting there is nowhere natural left on Earth.  However, we could be overestimating the extent of human influence at a local scale. In Conservation Biology, 2001, Caro et al. suggest there are still ecosystems that we have affected a lot less than we fear, called intact ecosystems. 

An ecosystem is described as intact if the majority of native species are still present and play the same functional roles as they did before extensive human settlement. These include areas of low human density - like equatorial, subtropical and arctic latitudes - and high biodiversity, which do still exist. The Amazon Rainforest, Canadian Boreal Forests, the Rocky Mountains and lake regions under Antarctic Ice sheets are all examples of regions with intact ecosystems.

Canadian Boreal Forest

I'm not suggesting that the presence of such ecosystems allows us to ignore the rest of the changes humans have caused around the globe, but it is valuable to remember there are still natural places left on Earth, and to decide how these need to be protected. 

As Chris D. Thomas reminds us in Nature, change isn't always a bad thing. Even if we are living in the Anthropocene, not all human activity has been detrimental to biodiversity. Humans are often responsible for introducing invasive species to ecosystems, which is commonly believed to be harmful to biodiversity. Stuart L. Pimm in The Future of Biodiversity, 1995, suggests that invasive species are a factor at the centre of most extinction mechanisms. However, according to Thomas, invasive species can actually increase diversity because less than one species dies out on average when a new species is introduced. 

It may be concerning that human activity such as development and land use change can displace multiple species from the original habitat, in turn supporting a smaller range of species and losing diversity. However, these man made areas create new habitats which promote speciation. A greater diversity of habitat type correlates to a greater biodiversity. Although you might think it is more important to conserve existing species, it is also important to consider future species and hybrids evolving during our time - or should I say the Anthropocene?

Whether human impacts to the Earth have been positive or negative, the spread of anthropogenic influence has only left few natural areas, so the great deal of support out there for the Anthropocene is understandable. If we really are in this new geological epoch, the question to ask next is when did it begin..?

The Earth in human hands 

Are we living in the Anthropocene? - Part 1

As an Earth Science student I have spent countless hours during lectures and out in the field trying to decipher what a certain rock sample or outcrop can tell us about the climate, atmosphere and environment at the time of deposition. So what happens during the next 100 million years when the rocks of our time become upthrust, eroded and exposed to the Earth’s surface? What will they say about our time on planet Earth? One thing is for sure; we have made a huge impact to the conditions on our planet, and these impacts are likely to be reflected in the future landscape of Earth. Whether these impacts will be great enough to distinguish rocks created before the evolution of humans to those being created today sparks debate over the Anthropocene.

Looking at a current geological timeline the Holocene is the present epoch which stretches back 10,000 years, but there is a growing scientific movement proposing we have entered the Anthropocene – a time characterised by human impacts to the Earth. This suggestion was first put forward in 2002 by Paul Crutzen, a Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric chemist. The term has since taken off, receiving support from The Geological Society of London Stratigraphy Commission and Jan Zalasiewicz. The Anthropocene could soon be made a formal unit of geological time, and be the first to be done so live.

Geological times are recognised by specific rock sequences, characteristic of Earth’s atmosphere, biodiversity and ocean acidity. Anthropological impacts will therefore be recorded in the rock record if humans have an influence on these factors. Arguably, human activity has already impacted every corner of the globe, from deep ocean environments to atmospheric composition.

Even at first glance, numerous examples of human impacts on biodiversity spring to mind. The expansion of the human race demands widespread agriculture which reduces numbers of native plants in preference to large expanses of single crops. The removal of forest for this purpose has knock-on effects of increased erosion. Fertilisers used for food production rinse into rivers, lakes and the ocean where they promote algal plumes. Human activity introduces invasive species which can eradicate native species. Ocean acidification is causing loss of coral species which will change the future of ocean rocks.

We are even more familiar with climate change. We constantly hear about carbon emissions in the media, and atmospheric carbon is now a third higher than in pre-industrial times, which links to global rises in temperature, in turn causing glacial retreat and further losses in biodiversity. Other processes of urbanisation such as construction and the damming of rivers, coupled with deforestation, as mentioned, are eroding excessive amounts of sediment to add to stratigraphy. Not to forget the legacy of plastic waste we are leaving behind us.

By briefly touching on the variety of human interactions with natural cycles you can see why the idea of the Anthropocene is becoming more widely supported. As each one of these changes is recorded by Earth they will create unique rock sequences that will, if we truly are in the Anthropocene, point towards a definitive changing point in Earth stratigraphy.

-Video source

Are humans the greatest geological force on Earth?

In a recent late night rant my flat mates were discussing how great and successful humans are, their view being that no other species can compare to our knowledge and power so we dominate planet Earth. They seemed to think this was brilliant for us. But I don’t think humans have only made positive changes to our world, surely continuing to exploit Earth for our own technological advancements isn’t necessarily something to be celebrated? So as useless as it was at 2am for me to challenge their opinions, I did try, and it got me thinking. The big questions in my mind are how large is the footprint left by the human race going to be? Are humans overtaking other natural processes to becoming the driving force of change on our planet? Would this make us the greatest geological force on Earth? Whilst three students sat in their kitchen late at night bragging about mankind may not put forward the most enlightened argument, they could be more right than they first thought about humans controlling the planet.

The idea that humans are ‘taking over the world’ by making so many global changes introduces us to the theory that we have pushed ourselves into a whole new geological age, the Anthropocene, as discussed in the New Scientist Environment blog. This hugely supports the idea that humans are changing the face of geology. Through this blog I will be exploring the evidence for the Anthropocene alongside the causes of many of the greatest global changes throughout human evolution. The areas I’m interested in include the loss of megafauna, global climate change and how the loss of modern biodiversity corresponds to previous mass extinction events – all with the aim of identifying who or what is dominating our current global environment.