It looks like Keystone pipeline protesters are having an unintended impact. Thanks in part to anti-pipeline activism, oil in North America is increasingly being shipped by train. So far this trend has been little noticed by the environmental community, but it's big news in the rail world. From Railway Age:

“Railroads are booming, and [the reason] is oil,” reports the well-known and highly respected stock market news and financial analysis website Seeking Alpha. “Railroad stocks are ready to leap on booming oil transportation.”

The boom started in January, when President Obama denied approval for pipeline operator TransCanada’s proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada’s oil sands to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. ...

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says rail deliveries of oil and petroleum rose almost 40% in this year’s first half. BNSF, the biggest railway mover of crude in the U.S., posted an increase of 60% in carloads of crude oil and petroleum products during that period.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports on the trend as well:

He hasn't even gotten his foot in the door of the mansion yet and already Jay Inslee is being touted as the nation's greenest governor -- and being pushed to live up to that reputation.

Inslee, a Democrat, won election in Washington state earlier this month after getting unprecedented support from state and national environmental groups. They're counting on him to keep up the advocacy for climate action and clean energy that he demonstrated during more than 15 years in Congress.

But on one critical environmental topic, Inslee has been largely silent: coal trains and coal export terminals. During the campaign, he, like his Republican opponent, stayed neutral. In a June debate, he said, "My view is we need to evaluate all of the jobs prospects, both plus or minus, before we make a decision." That sort of hedging prompted the Seattle alt-weekly The Stranger to make this demand the day after the election:

[S]tep away from your hedged position on those mile-long, toxic-dust-spewing coal trains from Montana that Big Coal wants to run through our state—and the city of Seattle—and then onward to Western Washington ports that will ship it off to energy-hungry China. The county that elected you needs you to get off the fence, stop talking about more studies, and start tangling in an effective, direct way with the coal-train pushers.

InsideClimate News has more on Inslee and coal trains:

Tired of all those election maps? Here's a new map to look at:

This one shows grades given to the 50 states for their progressiveness (or regressiveness) on reproductive health and rights. A report card put out by the Population Institute ranks states on availability of birth control, rates of unintended and teen pregnancy, access to emergency contraception and abortion, and sex-ed policy.

The worst state in the union? That would be Mississippi, which scores an F-. Eight other states failed too: Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Tennessee.

On the bright side: Go left coast! Washington state wins top honors with the only A+ in the union, while California and Oregon get straight-up A's. (Not that the West Coast states are perfect. Looks like there's some grading on a curve here.)

All of a sudden, there's a lot of talk in Washington, D.C., about a carbon tax, even among some conservatives.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) was ahead of the curve on this one. The long-serving liberal rep from the Seattle area introduced a carbon-tax bill in August, anticipating this very moment, when the "fiscal cliff" would be looming and everyone would be scrambling for some kind deal on taxes and the budget.

McDermott's Managed Carbon Price Act [PDF], a revision of a bill he first introduced in 2009, would tax energy producers at the extraction point -- when coal is mined, say -- and gradually ramp up that tax with the aim of reducing the nation's greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels within 42 years. That would generate a lot of revenue. The bill would dedicate 25 percent of it to deficit reduction and refund the other 75 percent to citizens to help them offset rising energy costs, though McDermott says he's open to other ideas from colleagues about how best to allocate the money.

The bill is a long shot -- a very long long shot -- but apparently it's now looking feasible enough that right-wingers are feeling compelled to bash it. In the last few weeks, conservative commentators have taken to The Washington Times (twice), The Daily Caller, and Townhall.com to inveigh not just against a carbon tax but against McDermott's bill specifically. At this point, the bill is getting more attention from the right wing than from the left.

Protests against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline have made tar-sands oil projects look more risky and less feasible. But oil companies aren't going to let a little pipeline-capacity problem stand in their way. "[O]ne oilsands producer has found a way around the bottleneck," reports the Calgary Herald.

Southern Pacific Resources, which began trucking out initial production from its new McKay Thermal Project three weeks ago, will open a dedicated rail terminal in a few weeks just south of Fort McMurray [in Alberta] and ship its product in leased tanker cars via CN Rail all the way to Natchez, Miss.

From there, it's just a short barge ride down the Mississippi River to one of the eight refineries in Louisiana

Best of all?

In this week's New Yorker, editor David Remnick congratulates President Obama on his reelection and then tells him to get his ass in gear and get moving on climate change:

Barack Obama can take pride in having fought off a formidable array of deep-pocketed revanchists. As President, however, he is faced with an infinitely larger challenge, one that went unmentioned in the debates but that poses a graver threat than any “fiscal cliff.” ...

Last week, in his acceptance speech, Obama mentioned climate change once again. Which is good, but, at this late date, he gets no points for mentioning. The real test of his determination will be a willingness to step outside the day-to-day tumult of Washington politics and establish a sustained sense of urgency. There will always be real and consuming issues to draw his and the political class’s attention: a marital scandal at the C.I.A., a fiscal battle, an immigration bill, an international crisis. But, all the while, a greater menace grows ever more formidable. ...

The effort should begin with a sustained Presidential address to the country, perhaps from the Capitol, on Inauguration Day. It was there that John Kennedy initiated a race to the moon—meagre stakes compared with the health of the planet we inhabit.

And it's not only latte-sipping Manhattan liberals calling for action. Republican Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and head of the EPA under George W. Bush, has this to say:

President Obama made a nod to climate change in his reelection victory speech, but does he actually intend to act on the issue in his second term? Will he follow up on his 2008 promise to slow the rise of the oceans, or will he stick with his oil-, gas-, and pipeline-loving "all of the above" energy strategy? And could he get anything through Congress anyway?

"Obama will likely stay the course on his current energy and environmental policies," writes David Biello at Scientific American.

That means more executive orders like the one that raised vehicle fuel efficiency standards, and continued progress on regulatory efforts to restrain greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution from coal-fired power plants.

... [I]nnovative programs such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy will continue to attempt to invent a future of cleaner energy. And the Department of Energy as a whole will continue to push forward with its “all of the above” energy strategy, which will encourage the rise of shale gas but also continue federal support such as tax credits and loan guarantees for big alternative energy projects, from solar power to nuclear.

Politico also focuses on the prospects for executive action:

Here at Grist, we've been following a lot more than the presidential campaign. During the past few months, we've told you about (and heard from you about) important contests over ballot initiatives, congressional seats, governors' mansions, and more. Here's a roundup of outcomes on some key ballot measures. As results roll in, we'll add to the list, and report on House, Senate, and gubernatorial races too, so stay tuned -- and tell us in comments below about races we should be sure not to miss.

California GMO labeling: no go

The good-food movement appears to have suffered a big loss in California. It looks like voters have rejected Prop 37, which would have required genetically modified foods to be labeled as such. You might think such an initiative sounds like good common sense, and so did most California voters -- until Monsanto, Dupont, Pepsi, and their Big Food pals poured $46 million into the anti-37 campaign and swamped the airwaves with fearmongering ads. Because labels are scary, and GMOs are not -- right? Still, Twilight Greenaway says a loss doesn't mean the food movement is a failure.

Michigan renewable energy goal: nixed

Our own David Roberts called this "the most important clean-energy vote" of the election season -- so that's big reason to be bummed out that Proposal 3 got trounced at the polls by Michigan voters. The initiative would have upped the state’s renewable electricity target to require that 25 percent of power come from clean sources by 2025. A front group for coal-reliant utilities spent nearly $24 million to scare voters away.

Longmont, Colo., fracking ban: thumbs up

President Obama marked his reelection victory with a rousing speech that called for, among many other things, fighting climate change.

We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.

Don't expect strong, or even tepid, climate legislation in the next two years. Congress will remain divided and intransigent -- the House controlled by Republicans, the Senate nominally controlled by Democrats but held hostage by a GOP minority all too happy to abuse the threat of a filibuster.

Still, the Obama administration can push forward with EPA regulations on greenhouse gases -- and that will be a real accomplishment.

The EPA will now regulate carbon. For good.

— David Roberts (@drgrist) November 7, 2012

Also, unlike that other candidate who got trounced, Obama believes in supporting and promoting clean energy.

In his speech, Obama reminded Americans that he can't push progressive priorities on his own:

Check out this bizarre video of Mitt Romney at a campaign rally talking about superstorm Sandy and its aftermath. Climate activist Ted Glick (a sometime Grist contributor) interrupts by yelling, "What about climate? What about climate? That's what caused this monster storm," and holding up a sign that says, "End climate silence." See what happens next:

Paul Constant of The Stranger: