Seldom do books stir passions as has Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist. Some critics of the environmental movement will undoubtedly use it to argue the Panglossian position that, since Lomborg clearly demonstrates that many of the traditional environmental claims are fabricated or wrong, environmental issues need not be addressed. Some activists will simply reject the book in toto.

Both do it a grave injustice, for it is carefully researched and Lomborg remains an environmentalist -- albeit an informed one. If you’re interested in environmental issues, this is one book you need to read for yourself.

I do not intend to review the book, for it has been widely covered elsewhere. Rather, I am interested in an observation by Lomborg (p. 32), who notes that, as he presented his research in Denmark prior to publication, “Many people have pointed out at my lectures that although I may be right in claiming that things are not as bad as we thought they were, such arguments should not be voiced in public as they might cause us to take things a bit too easy.”

This mirrors a point made by David Keith in the 2000 Annual Review of Energy and the Environment (pp. 276-7): “[T]here has been vigorous debate about whether discussion of geoengineering should be included in public reports that outline possible responses to climate change, with fears voiced that its inclusion could influence policy makers to take it too seriously and perhaps defer action on abatement, given knowledge of geoengineering as an alternative.”

These comments raise a number of issues, but let’s focus on two specific questions: is deliberately withholding relevant environmental information from public debate real, and, if so, is it desirable?

To the first issue, manipulating information is fairly common, as numerous discussions of corporate “greenwash” testify. What is perhaps new is that some researchers are turning the spotlight from business and government to environmental NGOs and finding the same patterns of greenwash. Indeed, some regard NGOs as better PR machines than any firm.

But there are some potentially major implications of this pattern. For one, polls show universally that environmental NGOs are trusted more than other institutions, and they certainly claim the moral high ground. Therefore, their responsibility to the truth should be greater. Lomborg shows that it is frequently not, even among some respected environmental scientists.

This is particularly problematic given the propensity of some environmentalists to embrace authoritarianism, on grounds that range from a concern that liberty of consumers and the free market are unable to respond to signals of environmental degradation (and therefore must be constrained), to a belief that only strong, immediate action can prevent eco-catastrophe.

But manipulating public debate by withholding information deemed unsuitable is a dangerous game. First, it is undemocratic and unethical: it amounts to an elite imposing its views on everyone else. For those who choose to support such a path, however, this loss will undoubtedly be seen as unfortunate but necessary.

But it is also bad for the environment. For one thing, scientific progress and understanding flourish only where communication is free, results are challenged and expanded upon, and theories debunked or upheld. It is extraordinary hubris to think that a limited few are so profound in their understanding that further scientific progress and knowledge is unnecessary. Such hubris is not a substitute for knowledge.

Second, in open societies it is difficult for such manipulations of information to stay unknown for long periods – as, indeed, Lomborg’s book reflects. When those who purportedly care most about the environment undermine the very discourse that must exist to protect it, it is a grave concern.

If the 20th century taught us anything, it is that ideological authoritarianism in any guise is evil -- and that it usually fails. Given the tough issues that face us in the decades ahead -- no less than the rational and ethical design of an anthropogenic earth -- there is no real option to open, multicultural, and, yes, frequently difficult discourse. We are still a long way from that ideal.

---------------------------

Allenby is Environment, Health and Safety Vice President, AT&T, an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and Princeton Theological Seminary, and Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia’s Darden Graduate School of Business. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily any entity with which he is associated.