Suchergebnisse

This article discusses the Norwegian media debate on surrogacy from 2010–2013. The debate was initiated by the 'Volden-case' where a Norwegian woman who had travelled to India to have surrogate twins could not return to Norway because the Norwegian authorities refused to give the children passports. At that time in 2010, surrogacy was not explicitly regulated by the existing Norwegian Biotechnology Act. According to the Norwegian Child and Parents Act of 1982, the woman who physically gives birth is the mother of the child. It soon became clear that, because this case existed in regulatory limbo, it required a legislative solution. At the time there was an intense and heated media debate. This was resolved when a temporary law was passed in 2013, pending a more permanent Biotechnology Act. During the process of revising the new Biotechnology Act in 2017–2018, we anticipated a continuation of the intense debate that occurred earlier. Surprisingly, this did not happen. In this article we aim to explain why. By analyzing the original 2010–2013 media debate using Hajer's concepts of 'discourse coalitions' and 'storylines' (Hajer 2003), we identified three discourse coalitions which gathered around three storylines: the 'storyline of biological parenthood', the 'storyline of equality' and the 'storyline on human trafficking'. The analysis demonstrated that the 'storyline on human trafficking' gained strength during the 2010–2013 debate, ultimately becoming hegemonic at the end of this period. Surprisingly, the other two discourse coalitions did not appear much in the media debate prior to the new law. This article discusses the lack of these discourse coalitions and concludes that the hegemonic nature of the storyline on human trafficking' may explain why the new Biotechnology Act did not spark heated debate. ; publishedVersion ; Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Open Access. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license.

This paper addresses possible effects of the growing focus on global warming on households' domestication of energy and the dynamics of energy consumption by comparing data pertaining to the domestication of energy within Norwegian households from two time periods: first, 1991–1995, when climate change was given little public attention, and, second, 2006–2009, after climate change became a major public concern. In the first period, we observed that the domestication of energy resulted in an energy culture emphasizing comfort and convenience with respect to everyday life and the abundant supply of clean hydropower. In the second period, this culture seemed to have changed, making households more concerned about their energy consumption. Consumption of energy was linked to climate change, and many interviewees claimed to save energy. However, the dominant expectation was still to be able to manage everyday life in a convenient and comfortable way. Thus, climate change concerns produced some but not very radical changes in the practical domestication of energy, including energy saving. A main effect was feelings of guilt, tempered by arguments regarding why change is difficult and complaints about political inaction. Thus, public engagement with climate change issues may facilitate energy efficiency policy but to succeed, wider climate policy measures seem to be needed. ; This is the authors' accepted and refereed manuscript to the article. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license. Locked until 2018-11-01.