One of our legacies from the last century, which was dominated by two world wars and the

Cold War, is
a sense of security that is defined almost exclusively in military terms. It so dominates Washington
thinking that the U.S. foreign affairs budget of $701 billion in 2009 consisted of $661 billion for military
purposes and $40 billion for foreign assistance and diplomatic programs.

But the situation in which we find ourselves pushes us to redefine security in twenty-first century terms.
The time when military forces were the prime threat to security has faded into the past. The threats
now are climate volatility, spreading water shortages, continuing population growth, spreading hunger,
and failing states. The challenge is to devise new fiscal priorities that match these new security threats.

Douglas Alexander, former U.K. Secretary of State for International Development, put it well in 2007: “In
the 20th century a country’s might was too often measured in what they could destroy. In the 21st
century strength should be measured by what we can build together.”

The good news is that in the United States the concept of redefining security is now permeating not only
various independent think tanks but the Pentagon itself. A number of studies have looked at threats to
U.S. interests posed by climate change, population growth, water shortages, and food shortages—key
trends that contribute to political instability and lead to social collapse.

Although security is starting to be redefined in a conceptual sense, we have not redefined it in fiscal
terms. The United States still has a huge military budget, committed to developing and manufacturing
technologically sophisticated and costly weapon systems. Since there is no other heavily armed
superpower, the United States is essentially in an arms race with itself. What if the next war is fought in
cyberspace or with terrorist insurgents? Vast investments in conventional weapons systems will be of
limited use.

The far-flung U.S. military establishment, including hundreds of military bases scattered around the
world, will not save civilization. It belongs to another era. We can most effectively achieve our security
goals by helping to expand food production, by filling the family planning gap, by building wind farms
and solar power plants, and by building schools and clinics.

We can calculate roughly the costs of the changes needed to move our twenty-first century civilization
off the decline-and-collapse path and onto a path that will sustain civilization. This is what we call “Plan
B.” What we cannot calculate is the cost of not adopting Plan B. How do you put a price tag on social
collapse and the massive die-off that it invariably brings?

When we crunch the numbers, the external funding needed to eradicate poverty and stabilize
population requires $75 billion per year beyond what countries around the world are already spending.
These measures will also help prevent state failure by alleviating its root social causes.

Meanwhile, efforts to eradicate poverty and rescue failing states that are not accompanied by an earth
restoration effort are doomed to fail. Protecting topsoil, reforesting the earth, restoring oceanic
fisheries, and other needed measures will cost an estimated $110 billion in additional expenditures per
year.

Combining both social goals and earth restoration goals into a Plan B budget yields an additional annual
expenditure of $185 billion. This is the new defense budget, the one that addresses the most serious
threats to both national and global security. It is equal to 12 percent of global military expenditures and
28 percent of U.S. military expenditures. Given the enormity of the antiquated military budget, no one
can argue that we do not have the resources to rescue civilization. (For more details on the required
spending see Chapters 10 and 11 in World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic
Collapse.)

Unfortunately, the United States continues to focus its fiscal resources on building an ever-stronger
military, largely ignoring the threats posed by continuing environmental deterioration, poverty, and
population growth. Its 2009 military expenditures accounted for 43 percent of the global total of $1,522
billion. Other leading spenders included China ($100 billion), France ($64 billion), the United Kingdom
($58 billion), and Russia ($53 billion).

For less than $200 billion of additional funding per year worldwide, we can get rid of hunger, illiteracy,
disease, and poverty, and we can restore the earth’s soils, forests, and fisheries. We can build a global
community where the basic needs of all people are satisfied—a world that will allow us to think of
ourselves as civilized.

Adapted from World on the Edge by Lester R. Brown. Full book available on-line at www.earth-
policy.org/books/wote