By WWF’s guest blogger Lee Barry, Climate Change Campaigner

As nature fans will know David Suzuki was recently in New Zealand on a lecture tour. I was lucky enough to hear him speak briefly at a Parliament conference entitled “A Sustainable Economy for New Zealand” hosted by the Green party. I admit the guest speaker was more of a draw card than the title of the conference. But that said, I was enlightened by both. And ahead of the next UN climate meeting in Cancun, some kind of global enlightenment must be what’s called for.

Dr Suzuki is one passionate man – enflamed you might say. And for good reason. He’s been banging on about the limits to human growth and our ‘suicidal depletion of natural resources’ for decades. We know he - and countless other scientists - are right, but have we listened? No, because we’ve been listening to the neo-classical economics myth (see, I did learn something at that conference) that the perpetual production and consumption cycle (i.e. growth) trumps any biological limits of the planet.

It does not of course – and as Suzuki and many other speakers emphasized, the economy and its growth (a 200-year-old invention by humans) is entirely dependant on a healthy functioning planet (the complex system that has supported humans and all other life for billions of years).

Why then do we succumb to being fearful of taking actions to preserve the scientifically known limits of the biosphere because it will be bad for the economy?

It’s as if ‘the economy’ were some mythical beast to be fed endless virgin rainforest lest it become mad with us and (gasp!) collapse. Should we not be a little more worried about the collapse of the climate system? The words on a Wellington street poster come to mind: “We’d like to save the planet but it’s just not economically feasible”. I dearly hope we can all see the irony in that.

While ‘saving the planet’ may not appear on the Cancun agenda in as many words, that’s the underlying purpose of the delegates’ mission. Government leaders at least recognised in Copenhagen the urgent need to act to prevent planetary warming anywhere near the danger zone of 2 degrees (we’re already at plus 0.74°C).

At this meeting, which begins in Mexico next week, they will need to focus on the detail of how to achieve that, and on building the trust and co-operation necessary for everyone to agree the rules. This will mean rethinking the current paradigm of what quality of life really means and looking further than short-term economic growth as an indicator of prosperity.

For example, New Zealand’s ministerial team of Tim Groser and Nick Smith will be heading to the talks with the intention of building as many breaks on forestry rules as possible into the new global treaty. Why? So our carbon accounts take less of a hit when the forests are cut down and we won’t have to spend so much buying offsets overseas. Translation: delaying our responsibility for reducing emissions is good for New Zealand. Right? It might be if protecting the New Zealand economy in the short-term was the endgame. But its not. There is no get-out clause on this one.

A new global climate treaty will eventually be adopted and all countries will have to do their bit.

By maintaining a short-sighted approach to meeting its global obligations the New Zealand Government is discounting the long-term benefits of action and the long-term costs of inaction. We’ve already missed the boat on being a leader in wind-energy (Denmark has the £4.8 billion market cornered, creating 28,000 local jobs). Are we destined to dither on the margins while other countries get on board with their eyes wide open to the future potential?

Getting things moving with more progressive climate policies here at home is the key to unlocking that potential, and meeting our obligations.  As part of the Copenhagen Accord the Government has indicated it’s willing to make emissions reductions of 10-20% by 2020 (which WWF-New Zealand advised should be more like 40% if 2 degrees of warming is to be avoided), but only if we get the rules we want included and agreed in Cancun. In the same time frame, with the current domestic policies in place – including the ETS, the Government predicts our actual emissions will rise by up to 30%.  Yes, you read that right. We have promised emissions reductions we cannot possibly meet – not by a long way – unless we drastically revise our domestic policies on climate change or buy enough carbon credits to offset our increased emissions (which might cost us up to $1 billion). Now while unlimited carbon trading could technically count as “reducing emissions” under the treaty, what it really equates to is creative accounting – and passing the buck for others to make emission reductions on our behalf.

See why David Suzuki gets so fed up? The atmosphere – the very life force that enables Earth to be Earth – the thing that is most important to our survival – is measurably degrading, its ability to support life is sapping away while governments like ours quibble about ways to duck their responsibility, and pass the consequences onto future generations. As the UNFCCC’s head Christina Figueras said recently, “it is in no-one’s interest to delay action.”

In Cancun next week, our ministers and the other delegates need to put aside their illusions of endless growth and agree on the basic rules that will allow all countries to equitably reduce emissions, live safely and maintain economies that are contained within the limits of the planet’s biocapacity while being protected into the future – because, as science shows, there is simply no other option.