The success of the American SpaceShipOne team’s flight into space proved that results can be achieved by rewarding innovation. The Ansari X-Prize Foundation could have tossed millions of dollars into a research fund, but it decided instead to spur on some good old-fashioned competition. The results, as publicized after the successful flight on June 21, have been impressive.

This instance should be proof enough that providing an environment for healthy competition can effectively develop cutting-edge technology. Rather than letting goals slide slowly into the quicksand of bureaucratic research, offer up a fat prize to anyone who can get the job done first. Only this time instead of rewarding the first group to send a man to space and back, reward the first company to create an affordable, clean automobile.

Instead of filtering government dollars through various research labs, propose tax breaks and a cash prize for any company that can produce a car that runs without the use of any fossil fuels or harmful emissions.

Don’t just set the goal as “clean cars” either; vague talk doesn’t bring results. Have concrete standards that must be met in order to win the prize. Something like: The car must be retailed at less than $30,000, it must run without burning fossil fuels, it must have a maximum speed of at least 85 miles per hour and have the carrying capacity of current gas powered cars for consumers.

Progress has already been made in the move towards more environmentally friendly cars. The major car manufacturers like General Motors, Ford and Daimler-Chrysler are already adding cars that use electric/gas hybrid engines to their lineups in response to higher gas prices and a desire for cleaner emissions. These cars will offer significantly higher gas mileages and reduce pollution. The market potential for clean cars is staggering; however, these are only one step closer to fully clean cars.

Cleaner cars today are smaller than gas cars, unreliable by comparison and more expensive. Even federal tax breaks for individuals the first year they own a hybrid car haven’t set that market on fire. It wouldn’t hurt to give manufacturers some incentive to research clean cars.

Traditional gas engines remain popular for many reasons. The cars are cheap to make, reliable and culturally ingrained. But of course, there are problems with our cars. Gas prices fluctuate by the month, oil is doomed to be depleted in our lifetimes and global warming looms as a potential threat.

Americans are aware of the poison we puff out as we drive along, so we would naturally love to have a clean car. That is, so long as it doesn’t get in the way of driving really fast. I love the ozone like everyone else, but I’d prefer to die of ultraviolet radiation rather than drag along in a puny, electric golf cart that I plug into the wall at night like a cell phone. In order to make real progress to replace gas cars, we need clean cars that can suit the needs of Americans in cost and reliability.

Stimulating research with a competition such as this would work for several reasons. First off, winning the prize is free publicity. Half of the advertising legwork is already laid out by news organizations covering the successful creation of a clean car that rocks. Hype and buzz would generate early earnings, and the company would be heralded as “the first,” not to mention the fact that it would do wonders for the PR of any car company to be so interested in environmentally friendly products.

Tax breaks spanning several years would give the manufacturer an advantage in keeping the retail cost of the cars low. This makes the vehicles more attractive to possible buyers, allowing the new cars to effectively compete against entrenched gas cars. It also gives an incentive for manufacturers to make the cars on American soil so that they can collect on the American tax breaks.

Funneling capital into research is a risky venture for any company, so part of that risk is compensated by the certainty of a return on investment through tax breaks and a cash prize.

Capitalist self-interest would drive the research as opposed to vague, poorly funded government efforts.