I've worked alongside environmental chemists that studied glyphosate specifically, what environmental damage are you talking about? I mean that sincerely; I've not heard of any proven environmental impact (there's never any shortage of conjecture). Glyphosate itself is a plant-protein antagonist that essentially stops production of cell walls, so by itself it doesn't do much damage to animals or humans because we don't have that cellular pathway. However, because it's water soluble, in order to effectively coat plants for uptake, large amounts of surfactants are used in practical formulations, which can be harmful to humans and animals. DDT didn't need the surfactants because it's lipid-soluble. So acute effects of consumption glyphosate formulations might be worse, but it's because of the surfactants used, not the glyphosate. Those surfactants and glyphosate both decompose fairly quickly, within days-to-weeks in soil vs. years for DDT. So glyphosate is less prone to have a huge long-term environmental impact like DDT simply because it doesn't persist nearly as long, and its water solubility allows it to be diluted much more readily than DDT which bioaccumulates in the fats of fish and other prey animals for raptors (which is why they get the shell thinning - there's even a medical mechanism for the shell thinning from DDT; it's pretty well studied).