0.00
Benefit-cost ratio
Drag the sliders. Watch the economics shift. Explore how AMC economics respond to changes in dosing, adoption rates, and the social cost of methane.
Drag the sliders. Watch the economics shift.
0.00
Benefit-cost ratio
$0
Net present value
$0
AMC size
0%
Break-even adoption
BCR is the total present value of social benefits divided by the total present value of social costs. A BCR of 14.41 means every dollar spent generates about $14.41 in avoided climate damages.
Most public infrastructure investments are considered strong at a BCR near 2-3. This ratio is high because methane abatement delivers large public benefits while intervention costs remain modest relative to herd scale.
The break-even adoption metric tells you the minimum adoption rate where BCR equals 1. Under baseline assumptions that is about 3.5%.
Social cost here is the total resource cost society bears to make the intervention happen. It is not the social cost of methane itself.
It has two parts: AMC outlay for risk and adoption support, plus ongoing manufacturing and deployment after the AMC window closes.
Under annual dosing, the non-AMC component rises materially because more doses are manufactured and administered over each animal's lifetime.
Adoption and social value scale benefits upward. Dosing scenario is the biggest cost lever. Feasibility (eta) shifts R&D risk, which changes required AMC support.
Use these controls together to test where economics remain strong and where assumptions become fragile.
Benefit scaling
Benefits = 11.4842B * (adoption / 0.50) * (socialValue / 30)
Cost by dosing
| Scenario | AMC | Non-AMC |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | $534.2M | $263M |
| Annual | $832.3M | $761M |
| Prime + booster | $1,068.4M | $950M |
R&D feasibility
Pr(success) = eta * (1 - (1 - p)^k), k = 15
Key assumptions
U.S. herd 90M, global herd 1.6B, social cost of methane $1,600 per ton, discount rate 2%, development lag 8 years, sales window 10 years.
Key uncertainties
The dosing regimen remains the most consequential open parameter. A single-dose profile and multi-dose profile produce very different cost structures and deployment pacing.
What could invalidate this model
Three conditions would materially weaken the economic case.
First, if no vaccine or additive achieves a durable 20% methane reduction in field conditions, the benefit estimate collapses. Current efficacy data comes from controlled trials. Pastoral and mixed-system field performance remains unvalidated at scale.
Second, if dosing requires annual or more frequent administration, total program costs roughly double. The BCR remains above 1 in all modeled scenarios, but the funding ask grows from $534M to over $1B, which changes the coalition-building calculus.
Third, if the social cost of methane is substantially revised downward from the current $1,600/ton central estimate, the benefit side of the ratio compresses. At $800/ton, the baseline BCR drops from 14.4 to approximately 7.2, still strongly positive but a different conversation for risk-averse funders.
The model is most robust to adoption rate variation. Even at 10% adoption (one-fifth the baseline assumption), the BCR remains above 2.5 under baseline dosing. The break-even adoption rate is 3.5%.
Model outputs on this page combine published emissions evidence with scenario-based economic assumptions used for comparative policy design.
About
This site presents the dedicated capstone work of an environmental scientist exploring how to fund what the world has been ignoring: the largest single source of human-driven methane, and one of the most under-funded climate problems we have.
What you'll find
This site is organized in two phases.
Phase 1 stress-tests a single proposed mechanism: an Advance Market Commitment (AMC) for a methane-reducing livestock vaccine. Four interconnected pieces walk through the analysis.
The Story Map is a scrollytelling narrative tracing the AMC from problem to mechanism design. It moves through the urgency of methane, the innovation deadlock that stalls private investment, and the coalition design needed to launch.
The Data Explorer presents seven charts that build the economic case, from firm payoff distributions and adoption curves to global readiness and cumulative climate impact. Each chart is the answer to a specific stakeholder question.
The Sensitivity Studio is an interactive techno-economic analysis. Adjust dosing, adoption, scientific feasibility, and social value, and watch BCR, NPV, and required support shift in real time. Preset scenarios reflect real reviewer concerns.
The Frameworks page documents the MCS analytical methods behind the work, including lifecycle assessment, pathways and barriers, and co-benefits, with full literature citations.
Phase 2 zooms out. The Spark Enteric Methane Navigator is a decision-support tool covering 15+ market mechanism types, from carbon credits and insetting to AMCs, subsidies, and regulatory pricing. It helps funders identify which mechanisms fit which markets, time horizons, and risk appetites.
Who built it
Delany Broome, an environmental scientist with eight years of experience in California state environmental work, currently pursuing the Master of Climate Solutions at UC Berkeley’s Rausser College of Natural Resources.
In collaboration with
Spark Climate Solutions, a nonprofit accelerating progress in under-funded, high-impact climate fields. This work builds on Spark’s 2025 Livestock Enteric Methane Mitigation Roadmap.
Outside her capstone work, Delany is active in the Berkeley Energy and Resources Collaborative (BERC) and the broader Bay Area climate community, an enthusiastic gardener and cook, a lover of the art of tarot, and a believer that climate work should leave room for joy.