We Are in the Anthropocene—Now What?
- 1Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Potsdam Germany
Abstract
While the term “Anthropocene” is well established across scientific disciplines and social spheres, interpretations are diverse. Taking account of the 2024 rejection by a geological commission to accept the Anthropocene as a geological epoch and the related scientific debate, here we offer a future‐oriented perspective from the viewpoint of Earth system science. We describe different pathways in the Anthropocene up to the year 3,000, systematically characterizing them according to impacts and causes. We discuss the enormous global consequences of anthropogenic pressures on the Earth system and quantify the corresponding long‐term commitment to change. Regarding the causes, we conservatively explore best‐case and middle‐of‐the road emission scenarios, in combination with climate sensitivities drawn from within the IPCC likely range. We also discuss implications for Earth system resilience that could result in what we call worst case scenarios for Anthropocene outcomes. We conclude that, beyond the slow pace of natural climate recovery spanning many millennia, even minimal, unavoidable residual emissions like from the food sector risk perpetuating global warming in the absence of other human forcing. One implication is that if climate or carbon cycle feedbacks shift toward reinforcing warming, they risk not only exacerbating climate impacts but to also surpassing human forcing in relevance. At that point, human influence on the Anthropocene would no longer play the dominant role.
Related
- Face aux défis de l’anthropocène, l’écotoxicologie doit s’adapter pour améliorer ses capacités de prédiction
- Agir avec les territoires cyborgs. Héritage(s) et projet(s) à l’heure de l’anthropocène
- What is the price of the climate transition planning ?
- Loss and damage as mental health policy: Valuing what cannot be replaced
- What hybrids reveal about the notion of species in Leishmania
BibTeX
@article{rockstrom2026anthropocenenow,
title = {{We Are in the Anthropocene—Now What?}},
author = {Johan Rockström and Maria A. Martin and Andrey Ganopolski and Jonathan F. Donges and Georg Feulner and Norbert Marwan and Stefan Rahmstorf},
journal = {Earth s Future},
year = {2026},
month = jun,
doi = {10.1029/2025ef007730},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1029/2025ef007730},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - We Are in the Anthropocene—Now What?
AU - Johan Rockström
AU - Maria A. Martin
AU - Andrey Ganopolski
AU - Jonathan F. Donges
AU - Georg Feulner
AU - Norbert Marwan
AU - Stefan Rahmstorf
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/06/01
JO - Earth s Future
DO - 10.1029/2025ef007730
UR - https://doi.org/10.1029/2025ef007730
AB - While the term “Anthropocene” is well established across scientific disciplines and social spheres, interpretations are diverse. Taking account of the 2024 rejection by a geological commission to accept the Anthropocene as a geological epoch and the related scientific debate, here we offer a future‐oriented perspective from the viewpoint of Earth system science. We describe different pathways in the Anthropocene up to the year 3,000, systematically characterizing them according to impacts and causes. We discuss the enormous global consequences of anthropogenic pressures on the Earth system and quantify the corresponding long‐term commitment to change. Regarding the causes, we conservatively explore best‐case and middle‐of‐the road emission scenarios, in combination with climate sensitivities drawn from within the IPCC likely range. We also discuss implications for Earth system resilience that could result in what we call worst case scenarios for Anthropocene outcomes. We conclude that, beyond the slow pace of natural climate recovery spanning many millennia, even minimal, unavoidable residual emissions like from the food sector risk perpetuating global warming in the absence of other human forcing. One implication is that if climate or carbon cycle feedbacks shift toward reinforcing warming, they risk not only exacerbating climate impacts but to also surpassing human forcing in relevance. At that point, human influence on the Anthropocene would no longer play the dominant role.
SN - 2328-4277
ER -