To mitigate climate change, fossil fuels need to be phased out, but political parties may fear a voter backlash when implementing the required policies. We investigate whether such backlash occurred in Norway, a multi-party democracy reliant on a large petroleum sector. Specifically, we analyse whether the loss of jobs in the petroleum industry due to the 2014 crash of the international oil price has influenced political support for the petroleum sector. Using data from party manifestos, we find that party positions on the petroleum sector remained constant over time even during an industry downturn. Pro-petroleum parties capitalized on the oil price shock by increasing their vote shares. However, the reaction remained local and confined to parties whose voters are not overwhelmingly concerned with other subjects, such as immigration. The voter gains enjoyed by pro-petroleum parties did not arise at the expense of pro-fossil fuel phaseout parties; instead, it was parties with an ambiguous position on the issue that incurred losses. Hence, multi-party politics of fossil fuel phaseouts are complex and taking a pro-phaseout position may not be politically costly. 

Key policy insights 

• Party positions on the fossil fuel industry stayed relatively constant over time in Norway and do not follow the traditional left/right cleavage.
• Pro-petroleum parties gained local vote shares from a rapid industry decline, unless a different, populist issue overshadowed their position on the fossil fuel industry.
• Pro-phaseout parties did not incur the corresponding losses, rather parties without a clear issue position lost vote shares.
• It is likely that political costs associated with fossil fuel phaseouts are higher in countries with less sophisticated social welfare systems than Norway.