This paper studies how mainstream parties have politicized environmental issues in Britain and France since 1979. It argues that 'the environment' should not be considered as one single issue or reduced to a single dimension of conflict a priori. It claims that the debate between spatial and salience theories should be sorted out empirically. Thus, it specifies environmental issues according to a new classification, distinguishing between valence – where all parties agree – 'proprietal’ – where only one party takes a position – and positional issues –where parties take distinct positions. It uses new quantitative and qualitative analyses of party manifestos, using the Comparative Agendas Project dataset. The paper then tests two hypotheses: the overall salience of environmental issues has increased, but mainstream parties prefer taking consensual positions.
