What do you think?
Rate this book
Environment: The Science behind the Stories
Environment: The Science behind the Stories captures your interest with a revolutionary new approach to environmental science. Integrated central case studies woven throughout each chapter, use real-life stories to give you a tangible and engaging framework around which to learn and understand the science behind environmental issues. Printed on FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified paper, the newly revised Fourth Edition engages you through the addition of new EnvisionIt photo essays.
792 pages, Paperback
First published September 14, 2010
15 people are currently reading
166 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
Read
December 7, 2023Okay, so, I'm not actually done with this book, but I needed more space than the GoodReads reading update character allotment would allow to talk about the water scarcity section and EDCs/water bottles (pg 398-399, ch 15, Freshwater systems and resources):
To begin, I do appreciate what this section tried to achieve. I recognize that this book sees itself as a teacher to the relatively uninformed environmental science student, and conversations about EDCs are necessary. I'm totally on board with that! HOWEVER, the presentation style of this section and the overall message are behind the times and lacking sufficient context.
Some specific issues with this section:
1) bold of the authors to assume that everyone in the US has consistent access to actually potable water. Ever heard of Flint, Michigan, lads? (Issue: not accounting for geographic variation in potable water availability.) Also, heck, *I* don't even have technically potable water for a good portion of the year. I live, for a not insignificant amount of time, between locations, and hotels don't have wells. (Nor do I recommend they start.)
If I don't buy bottled water, I die from dehydration. Simple as that. I do not have A CHOICE in endorsing plastic water bottles under systems of predatory delay. "What about glass water bottles?" I hear you saying. A great point! Unfortunately, those also contain EDCs AND are out of my American-housing-crisis-grad-student budget. This was explicitly addressed, which is great! But also very very bad news if you happen to be alive at the moment.
"Couldn't you just, I dunno, drink from a local river? Don't you live (and travel) mostly rurally?" Another great point! Wouldn't you know it, the local river is downstream from moderate industrial activity which makes me highly skeptical of drinking from it, even after "filtration" via iodine tablets or things like LifeStraws because, let me be very clear, METHODS OF FILTRATION DO NOT FILTER OUT ALL THE STUFF THAT COULD HARM AN INDIVIDUAL. This is partially due to technological complications and partially to the fact that it's simply REALLY heckin hard to know and measure and understand and *treat/filter* ALL the bad things in one water source. Gotta love post-industrial aquatic ecotoxicoloy. As for travel, American urban development has made this whole downstream-from-pollutants thing relatively commonplace! Which means river drinking = not an option if I have any interest in preserving my organ functioning. Which I do!
So, yea. Calling out water bottles for EDCs and painting tap water as superior misses the point of water availability to the public more *generally.* It's bad, we know that, but we don't have a choice about it. The better question is, or a better close would have been: how do we fix it? This remained unaddressed and glossed over in the interest of simply stating that water bottles are bad compared to tap.
2) inherently biased evaluation of qualities in reviewed water. So this one is a bit harder to explain. The issue is that the study tested for EDCs in water bottles (various brands) compared to tap water. (Again, assumes individual access to tap water and consumer choice in water options, but I digress). The problem is, it stopped here. So like, yea, oBVIOUSLY the water bottles are going to look like the worst possible option because YOU TESTED FOR SELECT CONTAMINANTS PRESENT ONLY IN THE WATER BOTTLES. That's like testing a bit of gopher poison against manchineel and deeming the gopher poison WORSE because it has much more bad evil awful deadly strychnine. LIKE YEA. OBVIOUSLY. You tested the strychnine-haver against the non-strychnine-haver and concluded that there is more strychnine in the former. Therefore! The strychnine-haver is Bad and Worse than non-strychnine-haver. Like, no shit, Sherlock, of COURSE you came to that conclusion bc the study was biased towards painting the bottles in a dramatically bad light. That doesn't mean the manchineel (i.e. tap water) isn't EQUALLY capable of murder in a DIFFERENT WAY. Lack of evidence of murder-capacity in one specific way does not, and cannot, indicate *safety.* It can only indicate lack of murder-capacity in that one very specific way. EXPAND YOUR HYPOTHESIS B R O S.
The subsequent issue with this is that it makes it so so easy for plastic companies to submit their OWN study demonizing tap water for a DIFFERENT contaminant. And that'll take approx. 17 years, by which point we will be 17 years into addressing the one situation and making another worse. Of course, then someone could do a comparative study on the relative Badness of each option, another 17 years, by which point the population could be well into water wars. So, the issue is, more simply, shirking of academic responsibility to address the FULL problem. The glacial pace of academia is a nightmare in ecotoxicology. That's not the authors' fault, but it is something they need to recognize in their writing.
3) regrettable substitution where? You can't talk about BPA and water bottles and EDCs in any meaningful way without at least MENTIONING the role of the TSCA and regrettable substitution. Lacking enough historical context to allow the reader an understanding of the full storyline.
Lastly, a clarification: I'm not trying to defend water bottles. On the contrary, I think water bottles need to vanish approximately immediately, and grad funding for bioremediation needs a lot more fiscal/resource support (totally not biased). BUT it is important to note that demonizing water bottles in this way is a weak defense and entirely capable of being thoroughly and readily destroyed by parties that have an interest in their designation of "safe" in the public mindset.
Chapter 11 page 290-
“Shoot, shovel, and shut up” - this same issue applies to regulations in construction and civils as well. Again, this is a problem of POLICY and regulation. *Cultural* regulation is erring on the side of self preservation because governmental regulation has proven incapable of impartiality, thereby *directly threatening the livelihood of the “unlucky” few who find threatened species on their land.* Of course people are going to adopt a shoot, shovel, shut up attitude. Until policy regains public trust through DELIBERATE and CONSIDERATE action, this will remain a constant obstacle for species preservation.
In short, public policy needs to address the cultural attempt to overcome policy constraints. As always. This book is a fantastic reflection of the nightmare that is modern reality.
Greenwashing’s cousin: environmental “optimism”
ALSO! I’d like to address the unshakable and unwarranted environmental optimism that haunts EVERY case study. The word “hope” or some synonym floats around the last two sentences of every. Single. Case study. Unrelentingly. This is, to be frank, absolute bullshit. You give me twenty nine DENSE pages (two columns!!!!) of reasons why the world is going to shit and close it with “but don’t lose hope <3!!” No. Stop it. Let your readers experience the grief and anguish that you have *designed* in your decision to carefully articulate the atrocities of modernity. Give them SPACE to REFLECT upon their reading without forcing saccharine positivity down their throats. The book as a whole is full of brilliant journalism, fantastic writing, clear and concise, but to close it with “don’t lose hope” is a band aid to the witnesses of repeated ecological massacre. It does nothing and is an insult to the gravity of the situation.
CHAPTER 21: New Renewable Energy Alternatives: p. 583
“The team concluded that most barriers to achieving a transition to renewables are social and political, not technological or economic. If governments implement policies to hasten the development of renewable alternatives, this body of research is telling us we can soon switch fully to clean renewable energy.”
This is the first I’ve ever heard of the Jacobsen study, and this offers a LOT of much needed (theoretical) promise for land use planning/management/development. It gives an idealized model to work towards. Thank the HEAVENS.
CHAPTER 24: Sustainable Solutions
“As we transition to a more sustainable economy, some industries will decline while others spring up to take their place. As jobs in logging, mining, and manufacturing have dwindled and developed nations in recent decades, jobs have proliferated in service occupations and high-technology sectors. As we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, green collar jobs (page 580) and investment opportunities are opening up in renewable energy.”
Withgott and Laposata, who’s making you say this? Why commit to the market economy framework in the sustainable revolution? Why not abandon the framework that keeps PRODUCING new issues and try something new? Why use your textbook to endorse an economic model dependent on this idea of permanent growth and moving forward that allows for excess proliferation of inefficient, short-sighted solutions? You can do better than that. On just the previous page, you endorsed a change in behavior. This is not a change in behavior. This is adhering to the exact same (economic) behavior that got us here in the first place. Revision of economic models is needed. Speculation on how those models will function is needed. How can we ever hope to dig out of this whole if we never bother to imagine what life is like at ground level?
To begin, I do appreciate what this section tried to achieve. I recognize that this book sees itself as a teacher to the relatively uninformed environmental science student, and conversations about EDCs are necessary. I'm totally on board with that! HOWEVER, the presentation style of this section and the overall message are behind the times and lacking sufficient context.
Some specific issues with this section:
1) bold of the authors to assume that everyone in the US has consistent access to actually potable water. Ever heard of Flint, Michigan, lads? (Issue: not accounting for geographic variation in potable water availability.) Also, heck, *I* don't even have technically potable water for a good portion of the year. I live, for a not insignificant amount of time, between locations, and hotels don't have wells. (Nor do I recommend they start.)
If I don't buy bottled water, I die from dehydration. Simple as that. I do not have A CHOICE in endorsing plastic water bottles under systems of predatory delay. "What about glass water bottles?" I hear you saying. A great point! Unfortunately, those also contain EDCs AND are out of my American-housing-crisis-grad-student budget. This was explicitly addressed, which is great! But also very very bad news if you happen to be alive at the moment.
"Couldn't you just, I dunno, drink from a local river? Don't you live (and travel) mostly rurally?" Another great point! Wouldn't you know it, the local river is downstream from moderate industrial activity which makes me highly skeptical of drinking from it, even after "filtration" via iodine tablets or things like LifeStraws because, let me be very clear, METHODS OF FILTRATION DO NOT FILTER OUT ALL THE STUFF THAT COULD HARM AN INDIVIDUAL. This is partially due to technological complications and partially to the fact that it's simply REALLY heckin hard to know and measure and understand and *treat/filter* ALL the bad things in one water source. Gotta love post-industrial aquatic ecotoxicoloy. As for travel, American urban development has made this whole downstream-from-pollutants thing relatively commonplace! Which means river drinking = not an option if I have any interest in preserving my organ functioning. Which I do!
So, yea. Calling out water bottles for EDCs and painting tap water as superior misses the point of water availability to the public more *generally.* It's bad, we know that, but we don't have a choice about it. The better question is, or a better close would have been: how do we fix it? This remained unaddressed and glossed over in the interest of simply stating that water bottles are bad compared to tap.
2) inherently biased evaluation of qualities in reviewed water. So this one is a bit harder to explain. The issue is that the study tested for EDCs in water bottles (various brands) compared to tap water. (Again, assumes individual access to tap water and consumer choice in water options, but I digress). The problem is, it stopped here. So like, yea, oBVIOUSLY the water bottles are going to look like the worst possible option because YOU TESTED FOR SELECT CONTAMINANTS PRESENT ONLY IN THE WATER BOTTLES. That's like testing a bit of gopher poison against manchineel and deeming the gopher poison WORSE because it has much more bad evil awful deadly strychnine. LIKE YEA. OBVIOUSLY. You tested the strychnine-haver against the non-strychnine-haver and concluded that there is more strychnine in the former. Therefore! The strychnine-haver is Bad and Worse than non-strychnine-haver. Like, no shit, Sherlock, of COURSE you came to that conclusion bc the study was biased towards painting the bottles in a dramatically bad light. That doesn't mean the manchineel (i.e. tap water) isn't EQUALLY capable of murder in a DIFFERENT WAY. Lack of evidence of murder-capacity in one specific way does not, and cannot, indicate *safety.* It can only indicate lack of murder-capacity in that one very specific way. EXPAND YOUR HYPOTHESIS B R O S.
The subsequent issue with this is that it makes it so so easy for plastic companies to submit their OWN study demonizing tap water for a DIFFERENT contaminant. And that'll take approx. 17 years, by which point we will be 17 years into addressing the one situation and making another worse. Of course, then someone could do a comparative study on the relative Badness of each option, another 17 years, by which point the population could be well into water wars. So, the issue is, more simply, shirking of academic responsibility to address the FULL problem. The glacial pace of academia is a nightmare in ecotoxicology. That's not the authors' fault, but it is something they need to recognize in their writing.
3) regrettable substitution where? You can't talk about BPA and water bottles and EDCs in any meaningful way without at least MENTIONING the role of the TSCA and regrettable substitution. Lacking enough historical context to allow the reader an understanding of the full storyline.
Lastly, a clarification: I'm not trying to defend water bottles. On the contrary, I think water bottles need to vanish approximately immediately, and grad funding for bioremediation needs a lot more fiscal/resource support (totally not biased). BUT it is important to note that demonizing water bottles in this way is a weak defense and entirely capable of being thoroughly and readily destroyed by parties that have an interest in their designation of "safe" in the public mindset.
Chapter 11 page 290-
“Shoot, shovel, and shut up” - this same issue applies to regulations in construction and civils as well. Again, this is a problem of POLICY and regulation. *Cultural* regulation is erring on the side of self preservation because governmental regulation has proven incapable of impartiality, thereby *directly threatening the livelihood of the “unlucky” few who find threatened species on their land.* Of course people are going to adopt a shoot, shovel, shut up attitude. Until policy regains public trust through DELIBERATE and CONSIDERATE action, this will remain a constant obstacle for species preservation.
In short, public policy needs to address the cultural attempt to overcome policy constraints. As always. This book is a fantastic reflection of the nightmare that is modern reality.
Greenwashing’s cousin: environmental “optimism”
ALSO! I’d like to address the unshakable and unwarranted environmental optimism that haunts EVERY case study. The word “hope” or some synonym floats around the last two sentences of every. Single. Case study. Unrelentingly. This is, to be frank, absolute bullshit. You give me twenty nine DENSE pages (two columns!!!!) of reasons why the world is going to shit and close it with “but don’t lose hope <3!!” No. Stop it. Let your readers experience the grief and anguish that you have *designed* in your decision to carefully articulate the atrocities of modernity. Give them SPACE to REFLECT upon their reading without forcing saccharine positivity down their throats. The book as a whole is full of brilliant journalism, fantastic writing, clear and concise, but to close it with “don’t lose hope” is a band aid to the witnesses of repeated ecological massacre. It does nothing and is an insult to the gravity of the situation.
CHAPTER 21: New Renewable Energy Alternatives: p. 583
“The team concluded that most barriers to achieving a transition to renewables are social and political, not technological or economic. If governments implement policies to hasten the development of renewable alternatives, this body of research is telling us we can soon switch fully to clean renewable energy.”
This is the first I’ve ever heard of the Jacobsen study, and this offers a LOT of much needed (theoretical) promise for land use planning/management/development. It gives an idealized model to work towards. Thank the HEAVENS.
CHAPTER 24: Sustainable Solutions
“As we transition to a more sustainable economy, some industries will decline while others spring up to take their place. As jobs in logging, mining, and manufacturing have dwindled and developed nations in recent decades, jobs have proliferated in service occupations and high-technology sectors. As we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, green collar jobs (page 580) and investment opportunities are opening up in renewable energy.”
Withgott and Laposata, who’s making you say this? Why commit to the market economy framework in the sustainable revolution? Why not abandon the framework that keeps PRODUCING new issues and try something new? Why use your textbook to endorse an economic model dependent on this idea of permanent growth and moving forward that allows for excess proliferation of inefficient, short-sighted solutions? You can do better than that. On just the previous page, you endorsed a change in behavior. This is not a change in behavior. This is adhering to the exact same (economic) behavior that got us here in the first place. Revision of economic models is needed. Speculation on how those models will function is needed. How can we ever hope to dig out of this whole if we never bother to imagine what life is like at ground level?
December 12, 2023
i hate taking notes for apes it makes me wanna drink my lab sample
August 12, 2017
I did not care for this book at all, I felt that it was hard to understand and not clear at all in regards to relaying the information in a clear and concise way students can understand.
June 20, 2019
Read for school
July 22, 2020
An excellent book on the basics of environment and sustainability.
May 8, 2014
The Environment, it is all around us, part of us and we are part of it. Here we learn of the stories that go along with all that is going on in our world, pollution, destruction, global warming, or better phrased as climate change.
Water, we drink it, bath in it, without it we couldn't survive,but do you know what's in it?Our food from the source to finish, but there is a part of it we know so little about.
A text book for sure, but it is also a good read for those who want to know more about our environment and what we and they can do to change, protect and use it wisely.
Highly recommend this for anyone interested in the world we live in.
Water, we drink it, bath in it, without it we couldn't survive,but do you know what's in it?Our food from the source to finish, but there is a part of it we know so little about.
A text book for sure, but it is also a good read for those who want to know more about our environment and what we and they can do to change, protect and use it wisely.
Highly recommend this for anyone interested in the world we live in.
January 18, 2013
We should all be informed about our environment status. This book explains well how pollution, global warming, and men-made changes to the environment are affecting our lives. The quality of the foods we eat, the air we breath, and what is happening to our resources should be common knowledge.
Very scary the issues of disposal of trash, the scarcity of water, the level of pollution in our atmosphere, and how little consideration we have for saving the planet, or thinking about our next generation. Very sobering!
Very scary the issues of disposal of trash, the scarcity of water, the level of pollution in our atmosphere, and how little consideration we have for saving the planet, or thinking about our next generation. Very sobering!
November 19, 2010
full of some scary scary shit. i'd put this under horror
Read
February 17, 2014My first ever university class.
December 23, 2023
ENV 121 Fall 2016
ENV 122 Spring 2017
ENV 122 Spring 2017
Read
May 26, 2020Had to read this for my bio class so I'm counting it
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews