r/environmental_science

Hello! I am fresh out of high school and intend to go into environmental sciences in university. I love nature and wildlife and would love to pursue a career in the field, maybe a wildlife biologist? Though, reading some of the posts on this subreddit, many people seem to not love it at all. From what I’ve read up, the average wage is around 80k yearly which seems livable, especially if I’m doing something I enjoy. I’m not sure though, I don’t want to go through four years of schooling if I’m just gonna end up miserable and poor. What are y’all’s thoughts on it?

So hypothetically, while not as harmful to the environment as AI images and Videos, I still got to wonder, does using it only for information useful and not wasteful ? And if so, do you guys have like AI’s that are like no harmful to the environment ? Btw I am only using AI mode from Google and nothing else, I used to use ChatGPT but not anymore. And also, is there a way to still use AI and not make it harmful aside from using only Text messages ?

This is a handbook compiled by myself with a few guest contributions from climate experts to help refute the common conversations around climate change and science.

It is hoped to be expanded upon and any commentary is invited to enhance it. If you’re a student, professional or local impacted by the study you are also invited to contribute to the project.

Hello, originally I wanted to pursue environmental science as my major, but after taking a peek at Reddit, I'm beginning to understand that this is not, in fact, the move if I want to actually make money and live a somewhat happy life. I still really would like to pursue a career somewhere in the environmental field; however, now I feel lost and kind of scared. I knew that job prospects for environmental work were not the greatest, but I didn't realize just how bad it was. I'm currently a junior in high school, and I still have some time before I have to figure out what majors I want to apply for. I've heard environmental engineering is better than an environmental science degree, but again, I'm unsure. I'm worried because next year I'm taking AP Bio, and I haven't taken a single physics class throughout my time in high school, as I originally presumed I wasn't going to pursue a major that heavily incorporates physics. Does anybody have any recommendations or suggestions? I'm at a loss here, and I'm a little terrified. I want to pursue something related to environmental science, but I don't want to be dead broke and have no job

Hi!

I just graduated highschool and I am planning on going to major in Computer Science and a minor in environmental science.

Although computer science is my major, I would really like to get into environmental consulting as I really do care about the environment.

I’ve done debate and speech as a whole for the entirety of my highschool career and I plan on continuing through out college.

I also plan on joining other speech activities like case competition and mock consulting activities.

Do you think that I would be able to get a job in environmental consulting with a minor in environmental science?

This is my main concern considering that I really do enjoy speech based activities.

Thanks so much!!

How did everyone find the exam?

Hello. This is typed out on my phone.

I'm starting out with I've been doing therapy and I've realized that I've lived my life doing as I was told. I wanted to be a marine biologist, but my highschool councillor told me to be realistic with my life choices because my dyslexia has been a sever issue with math. I was really good at the flute and thought maybe I should go to school for that and my father said I would have to live in his house forever because the pay is abysmal.

I am graduating this November with my BS in Environmental policy and management. I want to be a scientist. I don't know what scientist I want to be because I'm figuring out what *I* want.

From my understanding I'd have to start over at the bachelor's level.

I'm not sure if I need advice or encouragement. Thank you.

Hey everyone,
I have been working on a conceptual framework that looks at the long-term legacy of post-WWII industrial expansion through a strict mass-balance lens, specifically regarding synthetic waste.
Standard climate models heavily prioritize greenhouse gas concentrations like carbon dioxide and methane, but I think we are overlooking a massive, tactile driver of global environmental degradation: the atmospheric cycling of thermally processed micro-synthetics.
Here is the breakdown of the hypothesis:

1. The Phase Change of Synthetic Waste
   Matter cannot be destroyed. When civilization incinerates or thermally processes hundreds of millions of tonnes of plastics and petroleum-based coatings annually, we are not eliminating the material. We are performing a large-scale phase change, transmuting solid-state waste into a highly mobile, persistent atmospheric fallout.
2. The Albedo-Particulate Nexus
   Thermally degraded polymers do not just vanish into basic carbon elements. They generate a highly specific synthetic soot and fine particulate burden that is chemically distinct from natural biomass smoke. As this synthetic fallout undergoes long-range atmospheric transport, it eventually settles onto the cryosphere. Once deposited on glaciers and ice caps, it forms a microscopic, heat-absorbent film. Data from sources like da Fonseca 2025 suggests these micro-synthetics actively alter the thermal properties of ice sheets, accelerating melt dynamics far beyond the rates predicted by ambient atmospheric warming alone.
3. The Atmospheric Microplastic Cycle
   The atmosphere is acting as a closed distribution loop for these persistent materials. Recent literature like Shan 2026 shows that non-biodegradable micro-particulates are now a permanent variable in global weather systems, acting as ice nucleating particles that modify cloud microphysics and alter long-wave radiation retention. Because these synthetic molecular bonds are entirely foreign to nature, they have a near-infinite half-life and continuously accumulate in the troposphere.
4. Trophic Bioaccumulation
   This is not just a radiative forcing issue; it is an ecological crisis. This airborne particulate burden has a high surface area that acts as a vector for persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals. Once aerosolized, these fragments breach biological barriers via inhalation and ingestion, leading to irreversible bioaccumulation and cellular stress across multiple trophic levels.
   The Missing Variable in Current Modeling
   A major gap in current modeling seems to be the undifferentiated calculation of Global Warming Potential for atmospheric aerosols. Long-chain synthetic particulates exhibit unique refractive indices, sticky physical properties, and heat-retention capabilities compared to standard organic black carbon.
   Essentially, we are trying to mitigate planetary warming while the Earth's primary cooling surfaces are being permanently coated in a heat-absorbent, non-biodegradable synthetic dust.
   I am looking to stress-test this framework. To any atmospheric physicists, toxicologists, or radiative forcing researchers here: Does the multi-decade mass-balance of synthetic production and thermal aerosolization account for some of the unexplained anomalies we are seeing in cryospheric melt and systemic ecological degradation? What flaws or data gaps do you see in this logic?

Hello!

I graduated from undergrad last year (2025) with a B.S. in Environmental Science. I took a gap year to consider my options, and have decided I'm going back to school to get an MS. My question is, would it be useful for me to get a stats MS to pair with my envs degree, or should I just go for a envs MS? I'm really interested in stats and am currently taking a course to get a GIS certificate from my undergrad institution, so I feel like it would be a good pairing.

Any advice is welcome and very appreciated!