Americans may have decided they want Barack Obama, but it appears as though Americans don’t want his “green” policies given how they voted on state-level policies this election cycle.

For instance, in California (where Obama got over 60% of the vote) three major green initiatives went down in flames:

California’s Proposition 7 would have required power companies to produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 50 percent by 2025. Despite the Golden State’s impeccable “green” credentials, its citizens nonetheless decided that an economic downturn is no time to increase regulations on power companies and drive up energy prices for consumers. Proposition 7 was handily defeated, garnering a mere 35 percent of the vote.

California’s Proposition 10 , the California Alternative Fuels Initiative, was supported by businessman T. Boone Pickens and benefitted from the favorable media attention Mr. Pickens has garnered. Prop. 10 would have used taxpayer money to fund research in renewable technologies such as solar, and given grants to cities and colleges for renewable energy projects. The Proposition also would have used tax incentives to favor consumer purchases of high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles. Prop. 10 failed with 40 percent of the vote.

San Francisco’s Proposition H would have authorized a municipal take-over of the electrical business in the city. Prop. H also required that 51 percent of the city’s electricity be produced from renewable sources by 2017, 75 percent by 2030, and 100 percent (or all that is “technologically feasible”) by 2040. Opponents ran a successful campaign to defeat the measure, focusing their efforts on the “blank check” granted by Prop. H, referring to its provision allowing the Board of Supervisors to issue bonds in order to meet the ambitious renewable targets. Even San Francisco, the home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, did not trust the city to run the electric grid and Prop. H was voted down, receiving only 41 percent of the vote.

Also, a tax hike on oil and gas producers in Colorado was voted down despite the fact that Obama won Colorado with 53% of the vote:

Colorado’s Amendment 58 would have increased severance taxes on oil and gas companies by $321.4 million dollars annually in order to fund renewable energy projects, college scholarships, wildlife conservation, environmental clean-up, and water treatment. The Amendment was handily defeated 58 percent to 42 percent.

And nationally, voters favor greater access to energy enabled by less regulation and taxation:

Nationwide exit polls showed that Americans overwhelmingly support increased access to energy resources. According to MSNBC’s exit polls, 67 percent of all voters support increased access. In addition to the above examples of regions that voted for Obama, but against the spirit of his energy policies, exit polls found that almost 50 percent of Obama voters support drilling for oil and gas offshore.

What does all this mean?  For the most part, it means the best thing that could happen for Republicans in the coming years is for Obama and the Democrats to pursue a “green” agenda, particularly if that means things that will make energy (electricity, oil, gas, etc.) more expensive.

“Going green” may sound nice and all, and for a lot of reasons things like energy conservation make sense, but usually people vote with their bank accounts in mind.  And there just aren’t a lot of people out there who will want to pay a premium for energy just for some vague, feel-good “green” objective.