Sir,you're not only right,but also absolutely right. That's the incompetency of FPSC, sorry to say syllabus was arranged haphazardly and a paper setter was the one who thoroughly knows the Environmental sciences along with its practical application.
(.)

I had studied these books,2years earlier at the request of my friend. Believe me I have been through the syllabus thoroughly right now and I found it junkie stuff. Have you seen that I had mentioned "Critical geography" don't you think so it looks awkward ,that in ES we are studying geography. At this point I do agree with exclusively that Fpsc is searching for Mphils.
But a new point that even the expertise of many failed to stand itself is a big question mark on our system of education.Story gets too long.
So I'd suggest for upcoming aspirants to go for ES if your concepts are very strong,yup it could be advantageous for those who have strong background of Geo+ir+global capitalist fraud.
(My point of view about paper: well balanced paper with a good idea to search out the best out of ones mind,instead of making the students fail on the basis of slaughtering trend,that'd be a good idea)
But anyway I am still satisfy with FPSCs syllabus revision criteria.Because now there is no place for rote learning, and that CSS is not a joke but a serious business.
At least luck factor could be reduced periodically.
What's your opinion?