FH is not really vaporware. It consists of 3 cores, which are fully flight tested. These are tied together via plumbing that is software controlled. Well, that part is fully tested as well. Remember those 6-12x where spacex announced louder than normal testing? Those were FH testing. What remains to test can only be tested in flight, which is the side separation. OTOH, explosive bolts are well known and tested. Iow, slim chance of issue there. What is holding back FH testing is that spacex is focused on stage recovery, along with dragon2 and that Kennedy needs to be modified for FH.

so, u can claim that it is vaporware, but, Russia, Europe, China, japan, american, and Indian launch groups say that it is close enough to reality that they can not compete. And I will trust their opinion, over yours.

He can also punish the company with lose of subsidies, contracts, etc.
And Boeing has recommended Ariane at times.

No, it was canceled and restarted because it was awarded wrong based on the stated criteria. Airbus out and out lost the contract based on what was the stated criteria. However, Airbus had other side offerings that was considered but should not have been.
Had the procurement officer done things correctly, then Boeing NEVER would have had a second chance at it, even had airbus won it.

This case has nothing in common with the other.

Ariane is NOT ahead and that is what has them scared.
The only way for Ariane 5 to be profitable is by launching 2 sats at once. The smaller sat is now much cheaper to fly on the current F9. When FH comes out this summer, it will be capable of launch multiple sats in 1 launch that will costs less than what Ariane 5 charges for just 1 of the 2 sats.

Keep in mind that Ariane gets an annual subsidy to do 5-7 launches / year. And this year, because SpaceX ate into their meal, Europe had to double it. If SpaceX successfully returns a first stage, I have no doubt that they will be offering much lower costs to future launches, which will guarantee that Ariane loses all commercial space. At that point, to remain viable, it will take several billion euros / year of subsidies to keep them afloat.

Oh, I am a believer in converting our coal into methane (great point energy). As you said, we can not have a monoculture. As it is, it was the fact that we allowed coal to grow to 60% of our electricity that is leaving America in its current situation.
BUT, if we allow coal to go to methane, and add nukes, and other AE, etc, well, that makes good sense.

not enough to matter. Far more important is to focus on changing the vehicles, not the source.

I did not characterize the best solution as right vs left. I said that both of you fools are just that: fools.
You can NOT stall out anything. Economics forces the issues. Tar Sands are economical at 40 / bl. As such, they are viable RIGHT NOW.
The right strategy is to move the west from oil to EVs, but use nat gas as the extender. Like H2, and electricity, Nat gas or Methane can be CARRIERS of energy.

yeah, the far right is not much better. However, the far left screams about Nat gas and says that it hurts things, when in reality, it is the smartest way to go.

Wether it is developed or not, does not change the emissions. The same amount of oil will be burned if it comes from tar sands or from a well. RIght now, you are making the issue one of tar sand vs. pumped oil. That is a no win situation. At best, it is a tactical issue.
HOWEVER, if you let keystone go through, while getting all NEW COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (that burn that tar sand) to be using nat gas, and then doing EV with 'range extender' (basically serial hybrid), you start dropping the demand for diesel or tar sands. In addition, it will move the commercial vehicles into EVs

the far left need to quit thinking tactical and start thinking strategically. Otherwise, CO2 emissions will NOT drop.

in fact, the cars from before about 1950's burned gasoline, ethanol, diesel, or ..... kerosene. As such, they worked with the fueling stations that existed for heaters and lanterns.

And yet, most car makers and oil companies want to push H2
while Musk continues to push plain old electricity.
I wonder who is likely to win considering that in another 3 years, the Tesla model 3 will costs around 35K and they will be making 250K cars / year? That will put them in ~ top 25 car makers.

Not quite, but pretty close to accurate.

The far right runs around screaming that there is no climate change, while ignoring the science (real bad).
The far left runs around screaming that climate change is an issue due to science (good), but then ignores all of the solutions (just as bad).

So, how can the far left take advantage of the shale boom? Well, right now, the far right wants keystone pipeline.
If keystone goes in, will it lower or increase emission from tar sands? The answer is NO.
If keystone is blocked, will it lower or increase emissions from tar sands? Again the answer is NO.
Basically, keystone pipeline does not help nor hurt emissions.
So, what CAN happen is that the far left can use it to trade to lower REAL emissions. Transportation accounts for a large chunk of the global emissions, esp. in North America. That is very true for commercial vehicles such as semi-trucks, that burn diesel fuel.
BUT, by trading keystone for subsidies for commercial vehicles and large passenger vehicles (suburbans come to mind), that use nat gas at first, and then within 3 years, make it ONLY for Serial Hybrids that use Nat gas. With this trade, it will move large vehicles off diesel and over to nat gas. BUT, within 3 years, the move to serial hybrids allows makers to be using real electric vehicles and being able to switch to say hydrogen fuel cells, or perhaps wireless charging to run these vehicles. With this approach, then the far right gets their keystone, while the far left gets actual emission DOWNWARDS.

throw in ULA's Delta and Atlas as well when looking at quality.

Now, what is making SpaceX very popular are 2 things. The first is that SpaceX's quality is looking pretty good.
BUT, as you say, the price is right. At this time, SpaceX is MUCH cheaper than anybody else out there. And that even includes low quality chinese systems.
BUT, if all goes well come the 19th, and the first stage lands, then by next year, SpaceX could be re-using their first stage. next year.
And being able to knock off 33% would enable SpaceX to even self insure the flights.

Hmmm.
Europe's Ariane 5 has 2 failures and 2 partial failures on 77 launches.
ULA, has Delta IV has 1 partial failure on 28 launches
ULA has Atlas V has 1 partial failure in 51 launches.
And then SpaceX HAS been 100% successful, except for a test sat by orbcomm. But, even they were satisfied with the results. But, if you like, give them 1 partial failure on 13 launches

3 partial failures on 92 launches vs. 2 major failures and 2 partial failures on 77 launches.

I will take the numbers on the Americans, over Europe.

Ok, first Airbus has only managed to hit 7 launches a year MAX.
That is exactly how many SpaceX is doing for 2014.
SpaceX has shown that they continue to increase their launches year after year. OTOH, Airbus has never managed to do more than 7. Period.
Just because Ariane is incapable of doing more than 1 every 2 months, does not mean that SpaceX is that inept. In fact, they continue to show that they not only handle a production schedule, but also development with it as well. That is not something that Europe has mastered.

So, you might not want to bet on SpaceX, however, those in the industry are admitting that SpaceX is not only a threat to all others, but that they will certainly increase their production line well beyond what others can do.