The evaluation of the success of our Climate Train project will be presented in three distinct ways. Firstly the project will be examined in relation to the specific aims presented in publicity and funding applications before the journey began. Secondly there is a compilation of some quotes from participants collected in the questionaires returned after the journey. These include impressions not only of the Climate Train journey but also of the Climate Convention of which our project was part. Thirdly there is a more general conclusion which asks the question: did we really help to "Save the Climate"? It is important to note that this final chapter is not intended to stand alone, it is only a summary of the many aspects of the project which have already been discussed in detail in previous chapters.

In the funding application to the European Commission four specific aims of the "Climate Train" project were given. Each of these objectives will be taken in turn to provide a focus for evaluation.

Objective 1: To enable people concerned about climate change to participate in the Climate Convention in Kyoto, whilst minimising the contribution of our travel to the problem we are trying to solve - principally emissions of greenhouse gases.

Dietrich Brockhagen analysed and compared the global warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions produced by a journey from Europe to Kyoto by land and sea, rather than by air. This analysis has been presented in the chapter "Ecobalance of the Climate Train" and demonstrated that for each participant travelling by land produced approximately one eighth of the greenhouse warming effect compared with a similar journey by air.

This report clearly shows that the group was comprised of individuals concerned about climate change (see the List of Participants and their backgrounds and reasons for joining the project). Many of the participants are full-time scientific researchers or environmental campaigners in this field, and the group also included local government representatives from remote regions which are rarely able to participate in the international climate negotiations. Funding from the European Commission and other grants and donations was particularly vital in enabling participants from Central and Eastern Europe and China to travel to Kyoto who would otherwise have been unable to afford the to make the journey.

Our group influenced the negotiations at COP3 in Kyoto in many diverse ways -lobbying and arranging special events and presentations inside the Convention, and also organising actions and media events outside the Convention and in Kyoto city. These are described in the chapter "Climate Train Contribution to COP3.

Objective 2: To encourage a discussion of local issues related to global change at our conferences on the route in Moscow, Novosibirsk and Beijing. Siberia and China play important roles in global climate change, but since climate issues do not yet have a high profile in these regions in comparison with western Europe or Japan, it is important to raise awareness locally of the possible impacts and opportunities for mitigation.

Our Climate Train project also provided the focus for several Climate Conferences along our route, in Moscow, Novosibirsk and Bejing as well as smaller meetings with local environmental organisations in Berlin, Warsaw and Kobe. These are discussed in detail in the chapter "Meetings and conferences with local people along the route".

These conferences focussed on ‘local’ issues related to Climate Change, although some of the examples discussed such as the forest fires in Siberia, and the increasing encroachment of sea-water into the Chinese coastal plain are on a scale that will have an impact on the whole world. The attendant press-coverage of the conferences, especially in Novosibirsk, undoubtedly drew the attention of the wider public to the anthropogenic causes of climate change.

Although these conferences were hosted by our local partner organisations, the presence of the international delegates from the high-profile "Climate Train" group provided a critical focus and inspiration which helped to gain wider recognition for the important work being done by climate scientists in Siberia and China. These meetings also allowed the indirect participation in the Climate Convention of many scientists and other concerned individuals who were not able to travel to Kyoto themsleves. These individuals told us their specific concerns, and the group who actually attended COP3 was able to lobby on their behalf.

Objective 3: To provide an opportunity, through workshops and seminars on the journey, for participants from various countries and backgrounds to work together to plan activities at the Convention and parallel events in Kyoto, and to build partnerships for future co-operation.

During the journey, both on the train and the boat, there were many workshops both to convey information about climate science and policy and the Climate Convention process, and to plan our own contribution to the COP and actions in Kyoto. The opportunity to use computers on the train and ship also allowed us to write promotional and information material for use during the journey and at Kyoto. Some of these workshops are described at the end of the chpater "Life on the Climate Train".

The close proximity of people whilst travelling also offered many informal opportunities to discuss issues and problems and, most importantly, it forced people from many countries and many diverse backgrounds and experiences to work together and consider different local perspectives on the global problem. Most delegates at the Convention, who had flown in just before it began and were frantically busy within their own lobby groups, would not find the time for such discussion which is so vital to finding an agreement between all peoples. Our experience of the diverse scenery and cultures through which we travelled also helped us to link the abstract climate negotiations with the real world.

However the problems that were encountered in obtaining tickets and visas (see the chapter "Bureacratic barriers to sustainable travel"), and the rough weather on the ferry between China and Japan, took up valuable time which we had planned to use for discussion and planning activities so we did not complete our ambitious schedule of workshops. However on the return journey we did have time to initiate discussion of new ideas discussed in the chapter on "Future Projects".

Objective 4: To help raise public awareness of climate issues in the critical two weeks just before the Kyoto Convention, by providing a good "story" for the media in many countries. Our "climate train" will make a connection between the international climate negotiations which seem very ‘abstract’ to many people, and the role of individual people’s lifestyles and specific local emissions and impacts.

The novel nature of the journey and the Climate Train group acted as an extremely effective mechanism for generating media interest and requests for presentations from the participants, both during and after the conference.

The group was well-equipped with satellite phone and lap-top computers, enabling reports to be faxed or emailed en-route. SGR’s press officer Dani Kaye disseminated information and reports from the Climate Train to many media contacts all over the world. Several of us had public relations and journalism skills, and so consequently, many of the articles and features produced by the group were published. For all of us, our experiences with dealing with the local media at conferences along the route helped us to be ready for the international media waiting for us at Kyoto. Our diverse group was seen by the media as a bridge between people at home and the professional climate negotiatiors, so our impressions on the process were often sought. Our high profile was the envy of many of the thousands of delegates at the Convention. jostling for media attaention, helping us to lobby effectively.

The Channel 4 News television report from the Climate Train reached millions of people both in the US and the UK on the first day of the COP, and there were several other television reports about the Climate Train This is all summarised in the chapter "Media coverage of the Climate Train".

Richard Scrase and Yuri Dublianski sent out a questionnaire asking the participants to give their views on their experiences on the Climate Train, and many of the quotes in this report are drawn from their responses. Most of the quotes which relate to specific events have been included earlier, so only some of the more general ones are added below:

I want to travel more, take renewable energy sources more seriously, and get more involved in ‘Telepresence’, e.g. Cornell university and virtual reality. Bob Kenyon

I hope to write articles about the Climate Train / climate change / COP3 for environmental magazines and perhaps other media outlets. I want to continue campaigning in Warsaw by lobbying the city council, to persuade Warsaw to join the "Cities for Climate Protection", part of the international council for local environmental initiatives, or at least take up some of the initiatives described by this organisation. I will also check what other cities in Poland are doing and try to meet with Ministers of the environmental committee (who we met in Kyoto) and lobby them. I will send information to other train members and I’m going to learn Spanish and Tai-chi. And my friends are going to have to learn to eat seaweed with chop-sticks! Zuzanna Iskierka

The following quotation comes from an email sent by Michelle Valentine to Azza Taalab, who requested reponses from NGO participants in COP3 about the facilities provided by the Secretariat and how greater involvement of NGO’s could be encouraged in the future.

The preceding chapters have shown both how the Climate Train fulfilled its specific objectives, and how it influenced some of the people who actually travelled with us. However these were short term objectives and we are only a few of the six billion inhabitants of this planet, all of whom both breathe and pollute our common atmosphere. Some of us may ponder the more difficult, larger scale, long-term question: did we really help to "Save the Climate", as our T-shirts said for the cameras? Certainly, we contributed to many activities in the Climate Convention, and our journey provided the impetus for unique conferences on the route which helped to bring local people together to work on this problem. We also tried to do all this while minimising our own emissions of greenhouse gases. Moreover, if one were to calculate for various groups of people who attended COP3, the ratio of the number of stories they created in newspapers, radio and television, divided by the amount of resources it took to get them there, it is probable that our Climate Train would come out a clear winner. Although the "big shot" ministers received much more attention, we must bear in mind that each one is supported by vast back-up teams of civil servants and advisors, of whom those who flew to Kyoto are but the tip of the iceberg. Some of the larger environmental NGOs, while hardly well-off, still put in much more resources than us to make their headlines. But we should not judge the final outcome, either of our project or of the COP itself, by the amount of talk or papers it generated. In the long term, what matters is whether we all manage, to quote article two of the Convention, "to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a level which will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system". In other words, will our grandchildren inherit a comfortable planet for all the great variety of life, or will many of them die from famine, flood or disease, while a few swelter in isolated biospheres planning an escape to Mars? The unpredictable combination of many positive biogeochemical feedback processes still makes this a real possibility if we do not rapidly change our ways.

If we were to judge the success of the Climate Train by the main outcome of the COP itself, the Kyoto protocol, probably most of us would be disappointed (note: for those who are not familiar with the protocol, refer to the summary earlier) Although government ministers naturally like to proclaim their success at Kyoto, a simple comparison of the emissions reductions agreed in Kyoto, with the long-term emissions reductions required to reach safe, sustainable and equitable levels shows that we have hardly begun (for such figures see the earlier chapter "the scale of the problem"). While some people argue that the protocol is a valuable first step, we must remember that those opposed to emissions reductions can now say, this is the only step we are obliged to take for the next 13 years (the first period of emissions reductions specified in the protocol ends in the year 2012). During this period there is may be no limitation at all on the emissions from most countries of the world. Meanwhile the recent meetings of the subsidiary bodies to the COP in Bonn have shown that now the media spotlight is less intense the negotiations have once again returned to procedural minutiae. If there is no more substantial step before COP16, then this may be too late to avert serious damage to the climate system.

Although we tried to minimise the greenhouse gas emissions from our journey to the COP by travelling by train and boat, these emissions are still quite substantial. As Dietrich Brockhagen’s calculation showed (see "ecobalance" chapter), if we are trying to live sustainably we could each make such a journey once every year, wheras we could only fly from Europe to Japan once every eight years. But our journey still used a large part of each participant’s "greenhouse gas budget" for sustainable travel, and the round trip also took six weeks. Moreover for some people who have been organising the trip beforehand and preparing the report and accounts afterwards, the whole project lasted not for six weeks but for more than a year. The budget also shows that, although we tried to keep expenses to a minimum, the project was not so cheap. These resources of people’s time and money might have been spent instead on other projects to help "save the climate" -on local campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, on scientific research into climate feedback processes or development of energy-efficient technology, or even on planting trees.

So although we might have succeeded in our specific aims, if the whole UNFCCC process is so inefficient, was it really worth the effort to get to Kyoto at all? Probably many people who fly to such conventions rarely consider such a question, they take their jet-setting lifestyle for granted and frequent travel to conferences becomes a perk of the job and a status symbol in itself. Because our journey took much more time and was not so simple to organise, it has made us think harder about this issue. It is probable that for many of the millions of people who have heard about our journey through the international media, this will also be the most obvious question -12 days each way on the train and boat, was it really worth it? Perhaps, if they also understand why we did not fly instead, we hope some might see the dilemma and apply the same question to their own travel to conferences and holidays, and discuss it with their neighbours over a cup of tea, and slowly, slowly, the true scale of the problem and how we all contribute to it will sink in to people’s conciousness. If climate scientists and environmentalists only preach that we must all reduce emissions, most people will ignore us. By setting an example instead, we hope we helped more people to think about what this really means for their own lives. In this sense, we exploited the high media profile of the Climate Convention in Kyoto to help make this connection. It may well be true (although it is impossible to judge), that from the point of view of influencing the international climate policymakers, we could have achieved more with the same time and resources by staying at home and using telecommunications, and this would also have been more environmentally friendly. But if we had done this instead we would have been invisible both to the jet-setting diplomats and to most people at home who are not yet devoted to the internet. Whether or not the COP achieved much, it wasa unique opportunity for us to publicise this issue of sustainable travel, and to exploit this we had to actually make the journey. We also hope we can build on this later, for instance using the Climate Train story as a foundation for the planned book on this topic.

But it is still not enough only to exploit the UNFCCC process to publicise the side-issue of air-travel’s contribution to global warming. Although there are plenty of ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, both through green technology and through lifestyle changes, most of these will not happen on a large scale unless there is a financial incentive, unless the true cost of burning fossil fuel and realeasing greenhouse gases is built into our economic system. This means we need emissions quotas, and because we all share one common atmosphere, they must be agreed globally. There is no alternative process to the UN Climate Convention which can achieve this, so we have to strive to make it work better. This UNFCCC process has both frustrating and encouraging aspects, as demonstrated by the range of quotes from Climate Train delegates above. It is created mainly by the people who have been involved long enough to understand the intricate mechanisms, but these same people sometimes tend to lose sight of the wood for the trees. Therefore a continuous flux of new people, some of whom will later become old hands, is essential for a healthy process. Our Climate Train helped by bringing some fresh enthusiastic people into the Climate Convention, particularly from countries underrepresented among the main environmental NGOs.

We hope especially that our Siberian delegation to the COP and others who took part in our conference in Novosibirsk will continue to lobby their own country to play a more enthusiastic role in the climate negotiations. We have found that many citizens of Siberia are deeply concerned about the climate change already affecting their land, which is causing the peat and the forests to burn as we have ourselves observed. Yet despite the economic crisis, greenhouse gas emissions, particularly from the oil and gas industry, are still higher per person than in western Europe and Russia’s emissions quota in the protocol poses no challenge to lower them. In Beijing, the people we met seemed very knowledgeable about the science of global warming and its threat to Chinese agriculture and coastal cities, yet history still causes the government to be suspicious of any calls from the "west" for a global agreement to solve the problem. By coming on the train, we impressed upon them our genuine concern and willingness to reduce our own emissions.

As well as these conferences along the route we also used the time on the trains and boat for many workshops, but we all felt that there was not enough time for all the workshops that we had planned, due to the stream of technical problems with visas and tickets which constantly engaged the project leaders. Our long journey did not fit neatly into the pigeonholes of government officials, which they have designed for package tourists and convention delegates who are assumed to fly in only the day before it begins. Thus despite anticipating such problems in advance we were only able to get our group to Kyoto after much uncertainty, many changes of train, and a sit-in at the Japanese embassy, and 12 out of our expected 48 participants were not able to travel to Kyoto at all due to insurmountable visa problems. We hope that by highlighting here such unnecessary "bureaucratic barriers to sustainable travel" we might encourage a few government officials to get together to reduce these obstacles.

After overcoming all these technical problems it was a wonderful moment standing on the deck of the ferry singing our "climate song", seeing the bright lights of Kobe harbour appear beneath the dark storm clouds and green hills of Japan, and then finally the flashes of the press cameras waiting for us on the quayside. Our journey was almost complete and we had already achieved much of what we set out to do, for some of us six months before, when we sent those early emails proposing the idea. We enjoyed our bicycle ride to Kyoto and looked forward to engaging with more serious discussion in the Convention. However, arriving at COP3, as we later told the diplomats in our statement, we found a very limited and discouraging process, and it was difficult to lobby effectively since many of the most important sessions were closed to NGO delegates. Nevertheless each person found his or her own way to influence the negotiations since, as originally intended, we were a diverse group from many organisations travelling together to bring many different skills to apply to a common problem. This is demonstrated by the wide range of activities described in the chapter "Climate Train contribution to the COP".

The Climate Train was an ambitious project and, as explained earlier, we chose perhaps the hardest nut of all to crack in trying to tackle the problem of constraining the rapidly rising emissions from aircraft. Sometimes it seems like a thankless task, when people say we are crazy to think we can persuade so many people to change their high-energy lifestyle, and however loud a few people shout we will only make a small puff of wind in the great atmosphere of our planet. But we should remember that human society, like the weather itself, is dominated by feedback processes, and recall the famous butterfly who, by flapping his wings, later created a storm on the other side of the world. If, as many people say, we are at a turning point in the history of our planet, perhaps our Climate Train gave it another little nudge in the right direction to help "save the climate". Of course, only our grandchildren will be able to tell whether we really succeeded. We hope at least to be able to tell them, that we tried our best.

We must thank again all who contributed to the project in so many ways, those who provided the funds that enable people from so many countries to take travel with us, those who arranged our conferences along our route, our wonderful hosts in Japan, and above all those who who stayed at home but put so much of their time and effort into the organisation, publicity and reporting of our journey. We hope that this report has helped all of you to share a little of our unique experience from the Climate Train.