Existing research shows that partisan polarization on climate issues is increasing across many Western European countries. Why do voters supporting different political parties differ in their support for government action to address climate risks? Do they differ in their perceptions of the likelihood of different types of risk? In their perceptions of the severity of these risks? Or in their views about the effectiveness and appropriateness of government action? How do these perceptions vary when considering damage domestically compared to damage in countries in the developing world? We address these questions in the UK case using a survey experiment where we ask respondents to compare either the likelihood, severity or priority for government action of pairs of risks. We examine these questions across a set of 25 different climate risks which affect both the UK and countries in the developing world, which map onto the full set of risks identified in the UK government climate change risk assessment, and 22 non-climate risks of differing levels of likelihood and severity. This novel approach allows us to present the first systematic mapping of partisan disagreement over a full set of climate risks, and directly compare partisan disagreement on questions of likelihood, severity, and prioritisation for government action. Our approach also makes it possible to examine if partisan differences in how specific climate problems are prioritized follows the structure expected in the existing political science and psychological literatures on climate concern. The survey will be fielded in early 2025.