With an emphasis on short-term and popular goals in order to ensure re-election, political parties can be significant barriers to solving long-term issues such as climate change. On the other hand, party competition can also mean that parties act as catalysts for change. Despite their relevance, however, political parties are often neglected in the comparative climate policy literature. A growing body of literature has identified party polarisation on climate change as a barrier to long-term and ambitious climate change policies. In contrast, cross-party consensus on climate change awards policies both stability and legitimacy. However, no research has examined why polarisation or bi-partisan support over climate change occurs in the first place, and no research has set this question in a comparative perspective. As such, this paper seeks to identify institutional factors facilitating or hindering bi-partisan support over climate change. In doing this, it compares Australia and Norway, as these are both developed democracies with comparable amounts of fossil fuel exports, and neither country was significantly affected by the GFC in comparison to other OECD countries. Despite these similarities – and thus similar challenges and (dis)incentives for political parties in mitigating climate change – the two countries differ starkly in terms of party agreement on climate change. In Australia the issue is famously polarised, whereas the issue has received stable and strong bi-partisan support in Norway. Based on around 50 interviews with politicians, representatives from ENGOs and the fossil fuel industry, as well as scientists and bureaucrats in both countries, the paper examines the relevance and effect of factors such as the institutional governance system and interest aggregation, the role of veto points, the electoral system and the media system. The paper thus demonstrates the strengths and weaknesses of democratic institutional designs in addressing climate change.
