Hey Fireflies
Thanks for putting some more perspective on the discussion. I think you have captured the essence of what I have been trying to say. We don't need to act on just the climate science alone, we have enough justification for action even without it, and we do need to manage resources better now, regardless of the outcome or proof of MMCC/MMGW.
BTW I did try to divert my comments to dbindoff about the Carbon Tax to the Carbon Tax thread....very much has already been discussed there! 
Although that I agree that some segregation should be maintained when discussing these issues, their treatments, however, all lead to globalised effects. (ie fossil = global trade = global economy = global emissions problem).
Similar to the climate system, our human systems are comparatively complex (unnecessarily so!), and always quickly diverge to nearly all disciplines. Sadly, it would seem nigh impossible to treat one issue without impacting another. I believe the the solutions can only be found much, much further up the chain of systems, in the very "nature" and purpose of man. A change in cultural ideology is necessary before substantial progress will be made. It is not just the physics of nature that are the cause, and our intentions and desires are not always reflections of logic or natural process. Our "non-physical" ideas shaped the world we have created.
I also believe in careful and efficient consumption of resources. I don't believe we get the most out of what we use for a intended purpose, and our concept of "disposable" is critically flawed and dangerous. I believe the effectiveness of achieving an outcome includes all side-effects as the desired result. Perpetual motion through inclusion of all phenomena. (As best as we can!)
On Global Warming: I believe that humans impact the biosphere, and not always positively! It however once was a driver for sustainability, previously in my life, but now it's importance is severely diminished. The realization of other concerns have caused the effects of MMCC/MMGW to become secondary issues, that can be resolved mostly as a side effect of solving the more immediate ones. I live now, we live now, we all need to act now.
I do not quite know how to respond to your statement:
"However, the approach that JB takes, in arguing for a management approach that seeks as its aim; resource and energy sustainability, is a universally accepted goal (in this forum at least), but what seems to be lacking thus far JB is suggestions for the 'how'."
Did you mean that I haven't presented any/many suggestions, or rather that "we" need to work on more solutions in general? I do "try" to present tangible solutions, (I'm sure S2S would sometimes disagree! ) but I operate under the principle of trying to understand the problem, before implementing a solution ie Biogas. With that, I completely agree with your last paragraph; we need to concentrate on providing these solutions now, rather than "fumbling with the ball" in an effort to try and figure out what the game is!
) it does require intermediary steps to take such a direction, and Carbon Trading/Taxes are one such 'stick' to encourage economic behavioural change and innovation. As for the issue of whether C02 emission levels matter, that has to remain an open question, but as I alluded to before, high C02 levels can seriously alter marine ecology, even leaving greenhouse matters aside. By the way, the thread on biogas that you inititated I have found hugely informative and a real positive in the otherwise negative atmosphere of Carbon dioxide discussions.
Lol