At first glance, there are notable parallels between the outcomes of the Australian general election last weekend and the British election held in May. Both electorates rejected the incumbent party, but failed to endorse the main opposition in sufficient numbers to hand them a majority.

As Nature went to press, the power-broking in Australia was yet to resolve into a clear picture of the likely political landscape, although, as in Britain, the expected outcome is a coalition government.

Science barely featured in either election, but the issue of climate change lurked behind the scenes. Both elections returned historic representation from the Green party.

Australia's politicians have failed its people on climate change. Despite opinion polls that consistently indicated popular support for policies to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions, the country's two main parties have both weakened their stance on the issue of late.

The conservative Liberals ousted former leader Malcolm Turnbull last year over his support for a planned emissions-trading scheme, and replaced him with climate sceptic Tony Abbott. Soon after, the Labor party dumped the scheme altogether, followed by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The lukewarm approach to climate by his successor, Julia Gillard, seems to have contributed to the electoral success of the Australian Greens.

By contrast, Britain's three big parties raced to outdo each other on ambitious climate pledges in the lead-up to the election, a political arms race that leaves the resulting Conservative–Liberal union ahead of much of the public when it comes to support for policies to restrict emissions. However, consistent failure to deliver the promised action over the years shows that the UK model is no guarantee of success.

Australia's current political turmoil could yet benefit the climate. A coalition government will be forced to compromise and cooperate, and must look for popular support. Renewed focus on climate change would be a good start.