Not eating cows or drinking cow milk reduces your carbon emissions from cows 100%. You actually don't need technology or a start up to solve this issue!
India is close to Italy in Scientific output [1]: 1040 units vs 1104 respectively.
India's CO2e output is 2.62 billion tonnes, vs Italy 337 million tonnes.
India's GDP is $2.869trillion vs $2.004 trillion.
India's population is 1,336million vs Italy 60 million.
So, India consumes 7.7x the Earth's CO2 budget, but generates only .94x the scientific output and 1.43x the GDP.
Or put another way: the average Italian consumes 2.86x the CO2 as the average Indian, but generates 23x the scientific output and 15x the GDP.
Its really the 2nd and 3rd world who are flagrant wasters of the Earth's resources, not the developed world. Looking at CO2 on a per-capita basis is basically irrelevant.
The inescapable solution to climate change and resource degradation is population reduction of the 2nd and 3rd world to density and intensity levels seen in the 1st world, or perhaps even lower seeing as housing is typically unaffordable in most 1st world countries.
This would suggest a sustainable population of India of about 650 million - which was the population of the country as recently as 1977 [4].
[1] https://www.natureindex.com/country-outputs/generate/All/glo... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/india [3] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/italy [4] https://www.populationpyramid.net/india/1977/
The earth population that can enjoy life is not fixed at 2B, that's very myopic thinking. We should fund science & tech so that it's possible for 11B people to enjoy life without damaging the planet, instead of blaming the "others" based on racist anti-science attitudes and deliberately keeping them poor by punishing them economically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzBAxcJDSsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348
http://www.overpopulation.world/
Anyway, earth could very well sustain even 20 billion people according to Martin Rees (in "On the Future"). It does require that we really reduce our resource usage, however. Going vegan, using virtual reality instead of travelling etc.
Luckily the trends seem to indicate we won't reach more than 11 billion (which is still way too much at today's resource usage) before the numbers go down.
Heck, a trillion or more, if we all agree to be suspended in tanks and fed by tubes!
Literally the only thing that matters is CO2 per capita. India's is way low. The low scientic output is a consequence of low per-capita income, it has been increasing and will keep increasing, will definitely cross Italy's (having lived in South Europe I know how the culture here is). It's only a matter of time. India's population has always been historically very high due to fertile lands. It would have been much lower, but 200 years of British colonialism deliberately kept Indians in poverty, keeping birth rates high. And suggesting population reduction - how exactly will you do that? Genocide? War? Try it and see how that goes.
You should focus on reducing your arrogance, racism, denial of facts, and over-consumption. You are not better than others. Learn some morals. The real solution to climate change is science & technology. Our current consumption level is just not inline with the current renewable tech.
You just want to forcefully keep the rest of the world poor so you can enjoy driving your SUVs and eating steaks, while somehow blaming the rest of the world based on some made-up metrics. Guess what that's not gonna happen. Try it if you can.
1.83 tons of CO2 per capita for India
15.74 tons of CO2 per capita for the USANow obviously being a TV show they had to show some extreme examples but it was definitely interesting when things like imported asparagus dishes released more than the British beef dish. However, things like the wine were even more challenging, wine imported from Australia in bulk tanks was relatively ok, but wines imported after bottling (from Europe for example) where horrible because of the extra transportation.
There are plenty of market-based methods for accounting for these externalities though, such as Pigovian taxes.
There was a study (Swedish researches I think) that looked at what purchasing effect have form vegetarians as they typically spend less on food than meat eaters. It found while they do have lower green house gas footprint from food, the additional purchasing power brought this back around 2% overall.
So if you look at this holistically, stopping one thing doesn't end its effect unless there is zero flow on from other behaviours as a result.
Checkout the first graph on this site: https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local?fbcli...
It shows how eating animals and animal products is far worse. So even if we don't immediately eliminate all carbon emissions, reducing our consumption of animals can have a huge impact.