Latest news with #NDC
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
With modern airline retailing, airlines can sell a lot more than a flight ticket, become integrated travel platforms: IBS Software head
A big shift is on the horizon in how airlines look at their retailing strategy with 'modern airline retailing', which put the consumer at the front and centre of the retail process, leveraging data and technology to provide a seamless and personalised shopping experience to flyers for a lot more than just a seat on the plane. According to VK Mathews, founder and executive chairman of the IBS Software, modern airline retailing is 'the single biggest change that will take place' in how airlines will sell to flyers in the not-so-distant future. For IBS Software, a global software as a service (SaaS) provider in airline passenger services, air cargo management, loyalty management, to flight and crew operations, modern airline retail is a critical growth segment with immense potential. The company, while having a number of global airlines as users of its various products, its footprint in India has been rather limited. But with India's aviation sector booming with double-digit growth in passenger numbers and now with financially stable large airline groups, IBS Software sees the country as a market with significant potential and modern airline retailing appears to be a key focus area in its India ambitions. From a consumer perspective, modern airline retailing involves carriers turning into a one-stop-shop solution for the passenger—for booking flight tickets, ancillary services, and other services like lounge access, hotel reservations, cab bookings, car rentals, and even travel experiences, among others—based on individual needs and preferences. Think of it like a modern e-commerce platform, like an Amazon, but for travel with various products and services related to the trip available and integrated seamlessly on one user-friendly platform driven by latest technology and tools—artificial intelligence, New Distribution Capability (NDC), real-time data analytics, blockchain, internet of things (IoT), and more. 'When it comes to modern airline retailing, there's a huge shift taking place…Airlines would like to tell customers that if you think of travel, think of us, not just for the seat, but anything and everything related to travel. The technology and the standards are now available for making that happen. They can offer anything and everything you could probably think of, even things that may not be directly related to travel. Systems are now available to procure and aggregate, package, price, and deliver it to the customer and see through the delivery, making sure all service levels are met,' Mathews told The Indian Express. While online travel booking portals do allow travelers to book flights and other services on their platforms, these services are usually individual bookings made with different service providers with little to no operational synchronization and coordination. And that is where modern airline retailing is touted as a superior product and retail strategy as it promises end-to-end solutions to passengers that work seamlessly and adapt on a real-time basis. Airlines in the coming years could turn into fully integrated travel platforms that not just facilitate trip bookings but also actively manage them. 'You can book a car or book a hotel along with a flight ticket through the OTA (online travel agency) website, but what happens if your flight gets delayed? You then have to individually manage those other bookings. What will be possible with this (modern airline retailing) is that all the associated services you purchased get automatically amended and service providers will be notified about the changes real-time. It makes the airline the merchant of record for your other purchases as well,' said IBS Software's CEO Somit Goyal. 'One of the biggest trends that we are seeing among airlines is disintermediation. Airlines would like to go directly to the end consumer, removing the non-value adding intermediaries…They (airlines) would like to know the customer a lot better. Instead of being just a carrier, you have to have the conversation and a dialogue directly with the consumer. And if airlines want to go directly to consumers, they have to offer what the OTA is offering, and much more,' Mathews said. But why would airlines want to invest in offering so much more than just their core services to passengers? It is a multi-pronged rationale—increased revenue opportunities through partnerships and sale of other services and products, deeper engagement with passengers, opportunity to have dynamic pricing at a deeper level, and better understanding the customer in order to offer tailor-made and personalised packages of services and products. According to Mathew, an airline that can execute modern airline retailing well stands to gain on various fronts, including generating more ancillary revenue and raising its average revenue per customer. 'One of the challenges for Indian aviation, which is probably the most unknown as well, is that globally, an average ticket price or segment fee is about $163 as of this year, while it is between $90-100 in India. And the cost in India and overseas is almost the same,' he said.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘We're the canary in the coalmine': when will Russia take action on the climate?
GDP per capita per annum: US$17,383 (global average $14,210) Total annual tonnes CO2: 1.8bn (4.8% of global total, fourth highest country) CO2 per capita: 12.5 metric tonnes (global average 4.7) Most recent NDC (carbon plan): 2020 Climate plans: rated critically insufficient Over the past decade, Gennadiy Shukin has increasingly struggled to recognise the landscape he has known his whole life. River crossings that used to stay solidly frozen until spring now crack underfoot. Craters have begun erupting from thawing permafrost, and in the shallow waters where thick ice should be newborn reindeer calves are drowning. 'Last December, the cold barely came,' said Shukin, a reindeer herder in the Russian Arctic. The Arctic is warming 2.5 times faster than the global average, and in Russia's far north these effects are existential. 'We're the canary in the coalmine,' Shukin, 63, said. 'We are the first to witness climate change in such a dramatic way. It's no longer a distant threat. I hope the rest of Russia is paying attention.' The impact of the climate crisis is increasingly visible across Russia's vast expanse of 11 time zones. Some of Shukin's neighbours have had to abandon their homes as melting permafrost leads to huge cracks in the ground that swallow homes, pipelines and roads. Farther south, fire has scoured forests, with an area as large as Italy burnt in some of the largest wildfires in the country's history. But the country remains the world's fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and is often described as a laggard – or even an obstructionist – on climate policy. (Russia is the second largest emitter of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, but is not signed up to the global methane pledge.) Angelina Davydova, a leading Russian environmental expert, said: 'Russia keeps saying that the climate is important, that international cooperation on climate change is important. But then Russia is not doing anything to combat it. I don't think it's a pressing issue; they are happy with the status quo.' This may be because, in no small part, Russia's economic stability depends on the fossil fuels that are one of the root causes of the crisis. Vladimir Putin's entry to power in the early 2000s, accompanied by a rise in domestic support, was closely tied to a rise in global energy prices, which fuelled rapid economic growth after the instability of the 1990s. As oil and gas revenues flooded in, Putin moved quickly to consolidate state control over key energy assets, framing himself as the guarantor of Russia's newfound stability and prosperity. Energy wealth allowed the Kremlin to pay off debts, boost public sector wages and rebuild a sense of national pride – all of which underpinned Putin's growing political dominance. Oil and gas were not just economic drivers; they became central to the regime's legitimacy at home and its leverage abroad. On paper, Russia appears to be meeting some of its climate commitments. Moscow had little trouble fulfilling its pledge to cut emissions to 30% below 1990 levels – a target technically achieved years ago, not through climate policy, but due to the economic collapse that followed the Soviet Union's breakup. But throughout Putin's rule since 2000, the climate has consistently remained a low priority. The climate crisis was left out of the list of national goals for 2024 and omitted from key strategic documents, including the 2020 energy strategy to 2035. In October 2023, the government did announce a new climate doctrine, but while it acknowledges the risks the climate crisis poses to Russia and reaffirms the country's already weak emissions targets, it pointedly avoided any mention of fossil fuels as a cause of global heating. References to the link between fossil fuel combustion and greenhouse gas emissions were quietly removed. Russia's international reputation as a blocker of action on the climate crisis has only deepened in recent years. In 2021, it vetoed what would have been a historic, first-of-its-kind UN security council resolution calling the climate crisis a threat to international peace and security. At the 2023 Cop28 in Dubai, while many nations pushed for language calling for a full phase-out of fossil fuels, Russia was among the countries that resisted firm commitments, advocating instead for more flexible interpretations that would protect its oil and gas exports. Moscow's efforts to get 'transitional fuels' recognised in the final Cop28 agreement succeeded, helping to dilute calls for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels and allowing continued reliance on natural gas and other hydrocarbons. A year later, at COP29 in Baku, Russia sent a large delegation dominated by oil and gas lobbyists, whose primary focus appeared to be securing new energy contracts rather than advancing efforts to combat the climate crisis. According to the Climate Action Tracker, an independent initiative assessing countries' compliance with the Paris agreement, Russia's climate policies are 'highly insufficient' for meeting the 1.5C (2.7F) goal. If every country followed Russia's path, the world would be on track for more than 4C of warming. Still, Davydova noted that in the years leading up to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the issue of climate change – and how to address it – was beginning to gain 'unprecedented traction' among the general public and the business elite. But Putin's decision to send troops into Ukraine appears to have put Moscow's climate plans on ice. The fighting has had a devastating impact on the environment and climate. The climate cost of the first two years of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was greater than the annual greenhouse gas emissions generated individually by 175 countries, exacerbating the global climate emergency in addition to the mounting death toll and widespread destruction, according to a study on conflict-driven climate impacts. Throughout the war, Russia has deliberately targeted energy infrastructure, generating major leaks of potent greenhouse gases. Russia's invasion has also wiped out any incentive to invest in alternative energy, while, sanctions or no, fossil fuels have become even more central to the Russian economy. In 2022, oil and gas exports accounted for a greater percentage share of the economy than they did before the war, according to a recent study on Russia's climate policy after the war in Ukraine. Sanctions, combined with the near-total collapse of cooperation between Russian and western scientists, are likely to further hamper the country's ability to innovate in green technology. According to the Institute of Economic Forecasting at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia's capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could halve by 2050, primarily due to technological constraints. But Russia's elite seems largely unfazed by the climate crisis, instead framing it as an economic opportunity. Last month, Kirill Dmitriev – a close Putin ally – described the Northern Sea Route at a Russian conference on Arctic development as having 'interesting prospects' because of global heating, adding rising temperatures in the region could enhance access to untapped reserves of oil, gas and minerals. The Arctic has become a central focus in discussions of potential cooperation between the Kremlin and the Trump administration – with both having shown little concern for the climate crisis. Moscow and Washington have already held two meetings in Saudi Arabia to explore joint Arctic energy projects. The Kremlin wants to capitalise on its Arctic resources, and the US interest in them, to seek long-desired relief from sanctions and use the region as a springboard for rebuilding relations with Washington. For some, this is a worrying prospect. 'The Russian government has no alternative to offer its citizens except the destruction of nature for profit and war,' said the climate activist Arshak Makichyan, who has built a reputation as the Russian answer to Greta Thunberg. The problem is in authoritarian Russia, public opinion holds little sway over the Kremlin's agenda – and on the climate crisis, the government sees even less reason to act, Makichyan admits. Russia's war in Ukraine and western sanctions appear to have overshadowed Russians' concerns about the environment, with polls now showing that most view it as a distant issue. A 2024 survey by the independent Levada Center ranked environmental problems 12th among societal worries, far behind economic issues such as rising prices. By contrast, in 2020 48% of Russians listed 'environmental degradation' as the greatest threat to the planet. And the few environmental voices that have spoken out have been swept up in the broader crackdown on anti-war sentiment and political dissent; the state has outlawed local branches of the WWF and Greenpeace International, while also jailing dozens of environmental activists across the country. 'The environmental movement currently has no means to speak to a wide audience of Russians about the dangers of climate change,' said Makichyan, who was expelled from Russia in 2022, stripped of his Russian citizenship and now lives in Berlin. 'It's dangerous to have no means of raising awareness about climate change because, while the Putin regime will eventually fall, the climate crisis isn't going anywhere.' Source of figures at top: World Economic Outlook
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘We're the canary in the coalmine': when will Russia take action on the climate?
GDP per capita per annum: US$17,383 (global average $14,210) Total annual tonnes CO2: 1.8bn (4.8% of global total, fourth highest country) CO2 per capita: 12.5 metric tonnes (global average 4.7) Most recent NDC (carbon plan): 2020 Climate plans: rated critically insufficient Over the past decade, Gennadiy Shukin has increasingly struggled to recognise the landscape he has known his whole life. River crossings that used to stay solidly frozen until spring now crack underfoot. Craters have begun erupting from thawing permafrost, and in the shallow waters where thick ice should be newborn reindeer calves are drowning. 'Last December, the cold barely came,' said Shukin, a reindeer herder in the Russian Arctic. The Arctic is warming 2.5 times faster than the global average, and in Russia's far north these effects are existential. 'We're the canary in the coalmine,' Shukin, 63, said. 'We are the first to witness climate change in such a dramatic way. It's no longer a distant threat. I hope the rest of Russia is paying attention.' The impact of the climate crisis is increasingly visible across Russia's vast expanse of 11 time zones. Some of Shukin's neighbours have had to abandon their homes as melting permafrost leads to huge cracks in the ground that swallow homes, pipelines and roads. Farther south, fire has scoured forests, with an area as large as Italy burnt in some of the largest wildfires in the country's history. But the country remains the world's fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and is often described as a laggard – or even an obstructionist – on climate policy. (Russia is the second largest emitter of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, but is not signed up to the global methane pledge.) Angelina Davydova, a leading Russian environmental expert, said: 'Russia keeps saying that the climate is important, that international cooperation on climate change is important. But then Russia is not doing anything to combat it. I don't think it's a pressing issue; they are happy with the status quo.' This may be because, in no small part, Russia's economic stability depends on the fossil fuels that are one of the root causes of the crisis. Vladimir Putin's entry to power in the early 2000s, accompanied by a rise in domestic support, was closely tied to a rise in global energy prices, which fuelled rapid economic growth after the instability of the 1990s. As oil and gas revenues flooded in, Putin moved quickly to consolidate state control over key energy assets, framing himself as the guarantor of Russia's newfound stability and prosperity. Energy wealth allowed the Kremlin to pay off debts, boost public sector wages and rebuild a sense of national pride – all of which underpinned Putin's growing political dominance. Oil and gas were not just economic drivers; they became central to the regime's legitimacy at home and its leverage abroad. On paper, Russia appears to be meeting some of its climate commitments. Moscow had little trouble fulfilling its pledge to cut emissions to 30% below 1990 levels – a target technically achieved years ago, not through climate policy, but due to the economic collapse that followed the Soviet Union's breakup. But throughout Putin's rule since 2000, the climate has consistently remained a low priority. The climate crisis was left out of the list of national goals for 2024 and omitted from key strategic documents, including the 2020 energy strategy to 2035. In October 2023, the government did announce a new climate doctrine, but while it acknowledges the risks the climate crisis poses to Russia and reaffirms the country's already weak emissions targets, it pointedly avoided any mention of fossil fuels as a cause of global heating. References to the link between fossil fuel combustion and greenhouse gas emissions were quietly removed. Russia's international reputation as a blocker of action on the climate crisis has only deepened in recent years. In 2021, it vetoed what would have been a historic, first-of-its-kind UN security council resolution calling the climate crisis a threat to international peace and security. At the 2023 Cop28 in Dubai, while many nations pushed for language calling for a full phase-out of fossil fuels, Russia was among the countries that resisted firm commitments, advocating instead for more flexible interpretations that would protect its oil and gas exports. Moscow's efforts to get 'transitional fuels' recognised in the final Cop28 agreement succeeded, helping to dilute calls for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels and allowing continued reliance on natural gas and other hydrocarbons. A year later, at COP29 in Baku, Russia sent a large delegation dominated by oil and gas lobbyists, whose primary focus appeared to be securing new energy contracts rather than advancing efforts to combat the climate crisis. According to the Climate Action Tracker, an independent initiative assessing countries' compliance with the Paris agreement, Russia's climate policies are 'highly insufficient' for meeting the 1.5C (2.7F) goal. If every country followed Russia's path, the world would be on track for more than 4C of warming. Still, Davydova noted that in the years leading up to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the issue of climate change – and how to address it – was beginning to gain 'unprecedented traction' among the general public and the business elite. But Putin's decision to send troops into Ukraine appears to have put Moscow's climate plans on ice. The fighting has had a devastating impact on the environment and climate. The climate cost of the first two years of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was greater than the annual greenhouse gas emissions generated individually by 175 countries, exacerbating the global climate emergency in addition to the mounting death toll and widespread destruction, according to a study on conflict-driven climate impacts. Throughout the war, Russia has deliberately targeted energy infrastructure, generating major leaks of potent greenhouse gases. Russia's invasion has also wiped out any incentive to invest in alternative energy, while, sanctions or no, fossil fuels have become even more central to the Russian economy. In 2022, oil and gas exports accounted for a greater percentage share of the economy than they did before the war, according to a recent study on Russia's climate policy after the war in Ukraine. Sanctions, combined with the near-total collapse of cooperation between Russian and western scientists, are likely to further hamper the country's ability to innovate in green technology. According to the Institute of Economic Forecasting at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia's capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could halve by 2050, primarily due to technological constraints. But Russia's elite seems largely unfazed by the climate crisis, instead framing it as an economic opportunity. Last month, Kirill Dmitriev – a close Putin ally – described the Northern Sea Route at a Russian conference on Arctic development as having 'interesting prospects' because of global heating, adding rising temperatures in the region could enhance access to untapped reserves of oil, gas and minerals. The Arctic has become a central focus in discussions of potential cooperation between the Kremlin and the Trump administration – with both having shown little concern for the climate crisis. Moscow and Washington have already held two meetings in Saudi Arabia to explore joint Arctic energy projects. The Kremlin wants to capitalise on its Arctic resources, and the US interest in them, to seek long-desired relief from sanctions and use the region as a springboard for rebuilding relations with Washington. For some, this is a worrying prospect. 'The Russian government has no alternative to offer its citizens except the destruction of nature for profit and war,' said the climate activist Arshak Makichyan, who has built a reputation as the Russian answer to Greta Thunberg. The problem is in authoritarian Russia, public opinion holds little sway over the Kremlin's agenda – and on the climate crisis, the government sees even less reason to act, Makichyan admits. Russia's war in Ukraine and western sanctions appear to have overshadowed Russians' concerns about the environment, with polls now showing that most view it as a distant issue. A 2024 survey by the independent Levada Center ranked environmental problems 12th among societal worries, far behind economic issues such as rising prices. By contrast, in 2020 48% of Russians listed 'environmental degradation' as the greatest threat to the planet. And the few environmental voices that have spoken out have been swept up in the broader crackdown on anti-war sentiment and political dissent; the state has outlawed local branches of the WWF and Greenpeace International, while also jailing dozens of environmental activists across the country. 'The environmental movement currently has no means to speak to a wide audience of Russians about the dangers of climate change,' said Makichyan, who was expelled from Russia in 2022, stripped of his Russian citizenship and now lives in Berlin. 'It's dangerous to have no means of raising awareness about climate change because, while the Putin regime will eventually fall, the climate crisis isn't going anywhere.' Source of figures at top: World Economic Outlook
Malaysian Reserve
5 days ago
- Business
- Malaysian Reserve
What the EU stands to lose as the continent bakes
AS MUCH of Europe bakes in a heatwave — which has led to power cuts, deaths and wildfires — you'd think that the case for ambitious emissions cuts would be easy to make. Not quite. The European Commission's 2040 climate target has stuck to its climate change advisory board's recommendation of a 90% decline in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels, which is welcome. But, under pressure from member states including Poland, Italy and France, it was only able to make that politically palatable with the addition of what the commission is calling 'flexibilities' and critics are calling 'loopholes'. It's a clear sign that the geopolitical context — and the European Union's (EU) approach to the environment — has changed. The proposal allows for the use of international carbon credits — typically purchased from poorer, more vulnerable countries — to make up 3% of emissions reductions from 2036 onward. In other words, it enables the EU to outsource climate action, and it's the first time the bloc has set a climate target in which sectors not covered by carbon pricing aren't wholly dependent on domestic progress. There are reasonable arguments for including the caveat. In theory, it could serve as a mechanism to funnel funds into countries that find it hard to access essential climate finance. Some nations are already doing it: Switzerland bought carbon offsets that funded the rollout of electric buses in Thailand. It's cheaper to electrify public transport in Bangkok than it is in Bern, but on paper the emissions reductions are the same, so why not? The problem is that offsets have a long history of not doing what they claim to. Critics, including the EU's own scientific advisory board, argue that it could 'undermine' efforts to reduce emissions in richer countries. To maintain the integrity of the EU's progress on emissions, the allowance needs to come with some strict rules regarding quality and the types of activities that qualify — and a way to properly enforce those standards. Despite the controversy, it's unlikely that a big fight will happen over the proposal, which is the result of intensive consultations behind the scenes. The EU needs to get this tidied away so it can inform the 2035 nationally determined contribution (NDC) required by the United Nations (UN), which is already months overdue. To have any sway at the next climate conference in Brazil, the NDC needs to be submitted by September. The real battle of wills will likely focus on the simplification agenda striking a number of key green regulations, including reporting rules, agriculture and finance. These so-called omnibus packages are part of a broader pattern of backtracking on European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's flagship Green Deal introduced in 2019. Between wolves getting their protection status downgraded, delays to anti-deforestation regulation and electric vehicle (EV) targets and attacks on the nature restoration law, it's hard to shake the feeling that the EU is losing its grip on climate leadership. The pressure to dilute green ambitions stems from the rise of right-wing populist politicians across the bloc. Even French President Emmanuel Macron, once a staunch defender of climate action on the world stage, has allowed multiple environmental policies to collapse in France including the introduction of low-emission zones. He was one of the voices pushing to delay agreement on the 2040 target, arguing that it has to be 'compatible with our competitiveness'. The Green Deal was introduced to a continent unshaken by a pandemic and war, so in some ways it's understandable that defence and enterprise have grown in importance. But backtracking comes with its own costs for businesses. On July 1, a joint letter was published urging the EU to preserve its sustainable finance plans. Signed by more than 150 businesses and investors, including French energy multinational EDF SA, global insurer and asset manager Allianz SE and France's La Banque Postale Asset Management, the statement said that sustainability rules are 'conducive to competitiveness and growth, as well as long-term value creation and subsequent returns for investors'. What Europeans need more than anything is a clear and stable environment so they can plan for the future. The omnibus initiatives can help that by providing clarity where the laws are currently confusing. But it would be a big mistake to dilute the EU's green ambition any more than it already has. — Bloomberg This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. This article first appeared in The Malaysian Reserve weekly print edition
Zawya
5 days ago
- Business
- Zawya
President Mahama unveils major road infrastructure boost for Western North Region under ‘Big Push'
President John Dramani Mahama has reaffirmed his government's commitment to developing vital infrastructure, announcing the launch of extensive road construction and rehabilitation projects across the Western North Region. This will be carried out under his flagship 'Big Push Infrastructure Programme', a $10 billion initiative aimed at significantly improving national connectivity and economic development. Addressing a durbar of enthusiastic chiefs and people in Juaboso, as part of his ongoing nationwide 'Thank You Tour', President Mahama directly responded to a heartfelt appeal from the Western North Regional House of Chiefs. The Chiefs had passionately articulated the pressing need for improved road networks, emphasising that their overwhelming support for him and the NDC in the 2024 elections was a clear demonstration of their profound trust in his leadership. 'I have heard your concerns about the roads connecting our farming communities and our markets,' President Mahama stated, acknowledging the region's vital role in the national economy. 'These roads are crucial arteries for moving cocoa, timber, food products, and people across our country. They are not a luxury; they are a fundamental necessity.' The President assured the gathering that many of these crucial arteries, including vital cocoa roads that had previously experienced delays, will now undergo accelerated completion and new development as part of the ambitious 'Big Push' Programme. 'I assure you that these critical projects have been fully captured under our transformative $10 billion Big Push Infrastructure Programme,' he reiterated. Detailing the scope of this unprecedented commitment, President Mahama explained, 'The 'Big Push' is a strategic commitment to inject at least $2 billion annually into infrastructure development, with its rollout commencing robustly in the 2025 national budget.' He further added, 'We are dedicating substantial resources and deploying expert technical teams to ensure these roads are completed on schedule, transforming the landscape for our farmers, traders, and communities across the Western North Region.' Distributed by APO Group on behalf of The Presidency, Republic of Ghana.
