Between goals and means: the electoral consequences of parties’ climate proposals

How do political parties’ climate proposals impact their electoral fortunes? While research has explored public support for climate policies and the electoral consequences of implementing them, evidence remains limited on how parties’ climate proposals influence their support. This article conceptualises party positions on climate action along two dimensions: the direction of the proposal (supporting or opposing climate action) and its specificity (emphasising goals or concrete policy means). Drawing on a conjoint experiment in France, it analyses how climate proposals on these dimensions affect voter support for hypothetical candidates. Results show that supporting climate goals is electorally rewarding, while climate denial is strongly penalised across partisan lines. However, backing ambitious, concrete climate policies yields no electoral gains and may even provoke voter pushback, whereas avoiding such measures can be advantageous. Overall, the findings suggest pro-climate parties face limited electoral incentives to advance ambitious, specific climate proposals.