The biggest challenges now facing humanity are climate change, war and poverty. If money could be saved by disarmament and redistributed to deal with the other challenges, it would be of enormous benefit to humanity.

After a series of national and international conventions, world leaders have reached some sort of consensus on poverty and climate change. Of these, poverty is easier to address, since individual nations find it in their own interest to alleviate it.

However, little progress has been made on climate change or disarmament. The recent Copenhagen climate conference witnessed an unfortunate amount of discord, as individual countries sought to cut emissions by as little as possible.

Similarly, nations seek to ensure their security by increasing, not decreasing, their military armaments. War, it seems, is more likely to be ended by war than by disarmament. As UN efforts to promote disarmament diminish, individual nations pursue an irrational arms race, pouring huge amounts of resources into weapons.

The issues of climate change and disarmament are difficult, but may be less so if they are addressed in tandem. Both invite suspicion, leading countries to worry that their individual efforts will serve the interests of others.

If these issues could be combined, countries might be persuaded to save money by disarming in order to deal with climate change. The result would be a win-win situation: the burden of armament would be eased, while the savings could be applied to cutting emissions.

There are two impediments to disarmament. First, no country wants to be the first to disarm, for fear that others may not follow; and second, weapon companies have a lot to lose. As the latter argument is morally baseless, the only remaining obstacle is political.

The fear of being the first to disarm is understandable, which may be why disarmament has made so little progress in the past. Countries can reach agreement only when they are able to simultaneously cut similar quantities of weapons of the same grade. By adding climate change to the negotiations, it may be possible to increase the range of options.

However, we must not pin our hopes on individual governments reducing their suspicions and disarming unilaterally. Instead, through a variety of NGOs, we should seek to increase awareness that disarmament and cutting emissions can benefit everyone.

Of course, disarmament can and should be promoted within individual countries. People should require their governments to reduce their military budgets, stop new weapons' development, and to rely on diplomacy rather than displays of military might. They should refute the arguments put forth by weapons manufacturers and promote the benefits of world peace.

The UN can play a role as well. Negotiators should help expedite disarmament exchanges and promote efforts to link reductions of arms and emissions.

The problems of climate change and poverty require a huge amount of funds. Disarmament, on the other hand, can result in great savings. Attempts to disarm have been largely unsuccessful, while development of newer and more lethal weapons continues to make us all less safe. There is no time to waste.

The author is the founder and chairman of the board of Unirule Institute of Economics.