119
sediment in the late 1990s and, for the most part, the estuarine system was barren of
live foraminifera, although some improvements in environmental quality were
observed over time (between 1997 and 2006). Sporadic reversals in this estuarine
recovery were associated with dredging of the sediments and the resulting resuspension of clay particles associated with pollutants.
The percussion cores, in some cases, reached sediments with no geochemical
signal of anthropogenic activities and indicated an estuarine system with large intertidal areas dominated by normal marine to brackish foraminifera and background
levels of pollutants (i.e., naturally occurring concentrations). Overlying these sediments, we found the record of environmental transformation caused by the discharge of untreated domestic and industrial effluents during, at least, the last
150 years. Above that interval, there is a layer of heavily polluted sediments that is
barren of foraminifera (as shown by the surface samples). The lack of foraminifera
was associated with lack of oxygen and occurred during what we termed the younger
industrial zone (1950–2000).
Why the Anthropocene? The Answer
This chapter commenced with the question, “Why the Anthropocene?” The use of
this term to reflect anthropogenic effects on our environment since the “Great
Acceleration” of pollution around 1950 seems very reasonable, indeed. As I mentioned earlier, 1950 is the recommendation for the beginning of the “Anthropocene”
made by the Anthropocene Working Group in 2019. However, other scholars have
argued for an “early Anthropocene” that could go back to the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution at ∼1800 or even to as early as a few thousands of years ago
when signs of extensive agriculture (mainly rice farming) begin to show up in paleoclimate data. But we must remember that that the term “Anthropocene” does not
aim to represent the fingerprint of humans globally (which varies in time according
to region), but rather the time at which we became the most relevant driver of change
in our surroundings.
It can be understood why the term “Anthropocene” is controversial. In a recent
conversation with some colleagues, they subconsciously translated the term as
referring to “mankind” and others simply to “man”, thus highlighting the term’s
inadequacy from a gender perspective. “Anthropos” is the Greek word for human
being. Other researchers have suggested the term “Capitalocene”, which highlights
capitalism’s responsibility for our planet’s climatic/environmental crisis.
When to set the beginning of the Anthropocene is also controversial because
human activities are recorded in the sediment significantly earlier than the midtwentieth century. In the Bilbao region, I have already mentioned the regional pollution from Roman mining activities, and we have the historical evolution of the
estuary and the dramatic changes occurring since at least the 1300s and more intensively as the Industrial Revolution influenced Bilbao. Clearly, human activities have
impacted the environment around Bilbao for centuries if not millennia. Both natural
and anthropogenic drivers have controlled the evolution of this system. Over time,
7 The Anthropocene, Wait, What? A Basque’s Coastal Experience Helps to Figure It Out
sediment in the late 1990s and, for the most part, the estuarine system was barren of
live foraminifera, although some improvements in environmental quality were
observed over time (between 1997 and 2006). Sporadic reversals in this estuarine
recovery were associated with dredging of the sediments and the resulting resuspension of clay particles associated with pollutants.
The percussion cores, in some cases, reached sediments with no geochemical
signal of anthropogenic activities and indicated an estuarine system with large intertidal areas dominated by normal marine to brackish foraminifera and background
levels of pollutants (i.e., naturally occurring concentrations). Overlying these sediments, we found the record of environmental transformation caused by the discharge of untreated domestic and industrial effluents during, at least, the last
150 years. Above that interval, there is a layer of heavily polluted sediments that is
barren of foraminifera (as shown by the surface samples). The lack of foraminifera
was associated with lack of oxygen and occurred during what we termed the younger
industrial zone (1950–2000).
Why the Anthropocene? The Answer
This chapter commenced with the question, “Why the Anthropocene?” The use of
this term to reflect anthropogenic effects on our environment since the “Great
Acceleration” of pollution around 1950 seems very reasonable, indeed. As I mentioned earlier, 1950 is the recommendation for the beginning of the “Anthropocene”
made by the Anthropocene Working Group in 2019. However, other scholars have
argued for an “early Anthropocene” that could go back to the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution at ∼1800 or even to as early as a few thousands of years ago
when signs of extensive agriculture (mainly rice farming) begin to show up in paleoclimate data. But we must remember that that the term “Anthropocene” does not
aim to represent the fingerprint of humans globally (which varies in time according
to region), but rather the time at which we became the most relevant driver of change
in our surroundings.
It can be understood why the term “Anthropocene” is controversial. In a recent
conversation with some colleagues, they subconsciously translated the term as
referring to “mankind” and others simply to “man”, thus highlighting the term’s
inadequacy from a gender perspective. “Anthropos” is the Greek word for human
being. Other researchers have suggested the term “Capitalocene”, which highlights
capitalism’s responsibility for our planet’s climatic/environmental crisis.
When to set the beginning of the Anthropocene is also controversial because
human activities are recorded in the sediment significantly earlier than the midtwentieth century. In the Bilbao region, I have already mentioned the regional pollution from Roman mining activities, and we have the historical evolution of the
estuary and the dramatic changes occurring since at least the 1300s and more intensively as the Industrial Revolution influenced Bilbao. Clearly, human activities have
impacted the environment around Bilbao for centuries if not millennia. Both natural
and anthropogenic drivers have controlled the evolution of this system. Over time,
7 The Anthropocene, Wait, What? A Basque’s Coastal Experience Helps to Figure It Out