Lee: In your recently updated book, you ask,” Where have all the leaders gone?” You tell us that the world is falling apart and lament that the response of our “leaders” is largely cheap talk and band-aids, but little creative or bold action. Politics and selfish interests rule the day and trump courage, even if the very existence of the planet is at stake..

Your message struck home after I watched those T.V. ads about the environmental crisis that pair unlikely political opposites, if not enemies. Here are community activist Al Sharpton paired with far-right evangelical Pat Robertson; Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The odd couples assert their solidarity on one issue: the need for action to stop environmental destruction. “ If enough of us demand action from our leaders we can spark the innovation we need,” they advise us. This publicity campaign, funded by the $300 million “WE” initiative, asks viewers to go to a website to find out what we the public can do. I eagerly logged on. To my great disappointment and astonishment, the site gives some sketchy facts about the causes and effects of climate change and the need for clean energy. The “action alerts” ask viewers to: Inform your representatives that you care, to sign a number of petitions, to tell friends about the video, and to urge the press to ask about global warming.

I found the video and the website limp and frightening. Aren’t Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich our leaders? If they can’t get the message to other legislative and government leaders and jumpstart them into action how can we the public do it? More important, what’s wrong with these leaders who supposedly need a wakeup call from the man and woman on the street? Are they uninformed, stupid or just callously uncaring? Have politicians not heard about the environmental crisis? Will nothing significant happen until a critical mass of voters yell and scream, until there are bodies in the street from an environmental disaster, or until the price of oil skyrockets to five hundred dollars a barrel? But I don’t think that intelligence, information, or indifference is the problem. They can’t all be that intellectually challenged or unconscious. Surely something else is going on here that the ad is implying. OUR POLITICIANS WILL NOT ACT.

Perhaps they are paralyzed by fear of losing votes if they propose costly programs—even if our survival is threatened. They may also be too fearful of losing financial support from special interests and funding sources that want to keep the money flowing into their pockets—- no matter the cost and damage to individuals, civilization and the planet.

Whatever the reasons, the message is clear: Forget about politicians. We must find a way to address the environmental issues that bypasses them—and the special interests they are tied to—for any effective action to take place.

Yes, Lee Iacocca, you are right. We have no real leaders—and certainly no leaders on the issues that count most. What could a real leader do?

Over the past few decades, as the environmental crisis has escalated, I, like many others, have been surprised that no crash program has been initiated for the development of alternative clean energy— just as the “Manhattan Project” was launched to create the first atomic bomb. Lee, you even mentioned that on page 98.

Yes, I understand that some oil producing nations have little incentive for alternative energy as long as their revenues pile up and power is concentrated in a self-serving ruling class. But why haven’t the non- oil producing nations, whose economies are increasingly overburdened by the cost of energy, joined together to form a consortium to launch an “ Energy Manhattan Project.”

This is a daunting challenge. But precedent convincingly screams out “We can do it if we have the vision, will and determination.”

Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile in 1954. When he set that goal many said “It’s humanly impossible.” Bannister and his coach paid no attention to the naysayers. They believed in their dream, trained for it, and accomplished it. When the U.S. feared that Germany might get the atomic bomb first, with all the frightening implications for us and the world, we established the “Manhattan Project” and succeeded in unleashing atomic energy in just six years—at a cost of $2 billion—$24 billion in 2008 dollars. On May 25th 1961 President John F. Kennedy said we would land a man on the moon before the end of the decade. It seemed preposterous. But on July 20, 1969 Commander Neil Armstrong stepped off the Appolo ll Lunar Module onto the surface of the moon. When scientists set out to map the human genome, again many commentators said it was impossible. Yet the groundbreaking task was accomplished years earlier than projected.

Today, we probably know more about fuel and promising routes to alternative fuels—some alternative technologies already exist— than we knew about splitting atoms, space travel or mapping the genome when those projects were embraced. So why aren’t we moving ahead when so much is at stake?

Lee Iacocca, you may have the only answer that makes sense: “ It’s the lack of leadership, stupid.”

What then would it take if we had a leader? First the conviction that we can do it! Next, the money to lure the best scientific minds and build whatever facilities are required.

Why not set up a $100 billion fund gathered from nations, foundations, philanthropists and ordinary individuals all over the planet? The fund should be independently managed and supervised by trustworthy elder statesmen and stateswomen, primarily from the business world—people who know how to initiate, structure and run a vast efficient operation. (Politicians: don’t bother to apply—you have had your chance and have failed miserably). And set five years as the target for accomplishing the task of developing clean, inexpensive, alternative energy.

In all fairness some legislators, notably Senators Charles Schumer and Lamar Alexander, have proposed separate “Manhattan Project” type programs for developing energy independence. And today, Barack Obama, in a speech in Florida, said he supports a crash program for alternative energy.

But these proposals either lack clarity about funding or would turn the project over to existing companies and technologies (and call that independently operated.) Moreover, none of the earlier proposals have demonstrated traction or a groundswell of legislative enthusiasm. We know from history that some of the boldest proposals when thrown into the politicized and monetized legislative arena get mired down, watered down or hijacked, if not vaporized. We need a program that is adequately financed, open minded, and truly independent of politics and vested interests.

The broad based planetary endeavor that I’m suggesting might just fire the imagination and hopes of people around the world. If successful it would also inspire the vision that we can tackle any problem when joined together with conviction.

A $100 billion may sound like an outlandish amount to raise. But maybe not, considering that it would be drawn from a broad and powerful base of contributors. In the U.S alone over the last eight years (and that includes the current tax rebate program) we have given away more than $200 billion with the intention of stimulating the economy. In the first case (2001) it didn’t work long term, and the second rebate that is currently depleting our coffers is also unlikely to make much impact on our economic woes, according to most economists quoted in the press—one economic advisor called it “a comfort patch,” another said it’s “a band-aid… but it won't get consumers out of the woods." Consider also, the unconscionable amount of current spending on wars that some believe were fueled by the wish to gain control of fuel. But the positive economic value of inexpensive alternative energy is a sure thing to bring economic relief to oil dependent economies.

Al Gore brought us the truth, scientists have confirmed it, and the deniers are fading— even staunch political rivals are teaming up to endorse the message. Our planet is under assault and we are the enemy. Aside from bringing down economies, fossil fuel is destroying our only planetary home. The environmental clock is ticking and some experts have warned about the danger of reaching a point of no return. It is utter madness not to act. Oil dependency is our destructive torturer (it’s not an addiction—the world runs on energy). We need an alternative inexpensive clean energy source.

Lee, you’ve convinced us that it can be done and the time is now. We hear you—all we need is a leader. That leader may be closer than you think. Instead of looking without for leadership how about looking within? Many would agree that you are the one for this task. You understand the urgency and have the knowledge and experience to implement an “Energy Manhattan Project.” The torch is waiting for to you.

At the end of your book you say that you are “campaigning to bring back the leadership we deserve. Won’t you join me?” Yes, Lee we would like to join you. Pick up the torch and run with it. Lead the way!

— — —
(My recently published book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is published by Rowman and Littlefield (Oct. 2007) and is now available at Amazon.com,Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —

Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches “Spirituality in Film” and leads “The Spiritual Forum” at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio, he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the President of the Association for Spirituality and Psychotherapy and is the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. © Copyright 2008 by Bernard Starr.