Capstone, Spring 2026

A Methane AMC Case Study

A Methane AMC Case Study

The case in six charts

Each visualization builds on the last, tracing the path from market failure to measurable climate impact. The data behind the narrative.

NoteThese charts model the AMC under its design assumptions. The Sensitivity Studio tests where those assumptions break.

01 / The problem

Innovation stalls when the downside is unbounded

Without guaranteed demand, an R&D firm faces a wide distribution of outcomes that includes deep losses.

Firm payoff distribution: before and after AMC

Probability curves for R&D project payoff under two scenarios.

The AMC truncates the left tail of firm outcomes. When guaranteed demand eliminates the prospect of zero-return R&D investment, the innovation deadlock between public need and private risk resolves.

If the risk profile changes, so does the adoption math.

02 / The shift

AMC raises adoption at every cost level

Adoption frontier with and without AMC

At any given farmer net cost, adoption sits higher under the AMC. The mechanism's effective subsidy raises farmers' tolerance for input cost.

At $95 per animal-year, the AMC raises adoption from roughly 50% to 75%. The mechanism does not change the technology; it changes who can afford to adopt it.

03 / The geography

Readiness is uneven, but the opportunity is global

Global adoption readiness index

0 to 100 composite score · four equally-weighted factors · illustrative ranking

Brazil and India lead on two independent axes: herd scale and policy alignment. The eight countries mapped here represent approximately 65% of global enteric methane emissions from cattle and dairy.

How this was scored

Each country is scored 0 to 100 on four equally-weighted structural factors, then averaged into a composite readiness index. The index is illustrative: it captures structural preconditions for vaccine adoption, not a formal audit or official ranking.

Country Herd scale Infrastructure Farm incentive Policy alignment Index
Brazil100859010096
India100708010088
Australia65100806578
USA7095605572
Argentina6565555560
China7560404555
Mexico4550454546
Ethiopia5520354038
Factor definitions
Herd scale: national cattle & dairy herd size relative to global top; proxy for total abatement opportunity.
Infrastructure: cold-chain capacity, veterinary service density, and rural logistics quality needed for vaccine delivery.
Farm incentive: existing subsidy structures, input cost sensitivity, and farmer income margins that shape willingness to adopt a new input cost.
Policy alignment: NDC livestock coverage, national agriculture climate commitments, and regulatory openness to novel veterinary products.

Sources: FAO FAOSTAT Livestock Primary (2022) · World Bank Logistics Performance Index (2023) · UNFCCC NDC Registry (2025) · Spark Climate Solutions Enteric Methane Roadmap (2025) · Scores authored by the project team based on published indicators; not an official index.

04 / The returns

Funding scales sub-linearly

Funding vs. cumulative abatement

Early returns accelerate as fixed costs amortize across more abatement. Beyond roughly $750M, marginal abatement falls as the highest-readiness adoption is captured first.

At the $534M baseline, the abatement curve has not yet flattened. The designed commitment sits in the high-return portion of the curve, before diminishing marginal returns set in.

05 / The payoff

Cumulative avoided emissions diverge rapidly

Cumulative emissions reduction: with and without AMC

The without-AMC baseline assumes some organic adoption from voluntary actors. The gap between the two curves represents AMC-attributable abatement.

The 142 MtCO₂e gap by 2035 is the mechanism's attributable impact. The without-AMC baseline is not zero: organic adoption from voluntary actors continues. The mechanism accelerates what the market would otherwise deliver too slowly to matter.

06 / The efficiency

Abatement cost falls sharply and stays low

Cost per tonne CO₂e avoided vs. adoption rate

Baseline scenario · GWP100 · 10-year program horizon · fixed costs $120M, variable costs scale with adoption

Cost per tonne falls as fixed program costs amortize across a growing abatement base. At baseline adoption (25%), the mechanism delivers abatement at roughly 1.7% of the EPA's estimated social cost of the harm it prevents.

Against the harm avoided. The EPA estimates the social cost of carbon at approximately $190 per tonne CO₂e (2023 update). At baseline adoption, this AMC delivers abatement at roughly 1.7% of that benchmark, a fraction of the cost of the harm it prevents.

07 / The synthesis

The economic case closes

Taken together, these six views show an AMC that performs strongly under its design assumptions: the firm payoff distribution shifts decisively, adoption rises at every cost level, the funding curve approaches saturation, the cumulative emissions diverge, and the abatement cost lands at a small fraction of the social cost of carbon. The economic case closes on its own terms. What remains open is whether the upstream structural conditions hold. That question moves to the Sensitivity Studio and the Design page.

Stress-test the assumptions in the Sensitivity Studio · Review the analytical frameworks

Next

04 / Test · The model under pressure

An interactive techno-economic analysis. Adjust dosing, adoption, and feasibility, and watch the economics shift.

Continue →