Sociology as a discipline is concerned with relationships. The relationship addressed inthis book, is the one between society and nature. More specifically, the process ofmaking pollution and the environmental condition relevant for – and in – parliament isused as an analytical prism to gain better understanding of that relationship. Building ontheoretical perspectives from pragmatic moral-political sociology developed by Boltanskiand Thévenot, the changing valuation of «nature» and «the environment» in Norwegianparliamentary debates is analysed: When and how is nature made a relevant forparliament? How is nature valued in these debates? How are decisions on environmental-and petroleum policy legitimated? What kind of knowledge is made relevant? Inwhat ways have parliamentary debates changed over time and how can we understandthese changes?Empirical data is an extensive sample of Norwegian parliamentary debates in the period1945–2013. The book maps the historical trajectory of the political conflicts on theenvironmental consequences from industry in Norway, and the petroleum industry inparticular. The analysis exposes how the form of valuable nature has changed substantiallyover time. That is, what makes nature valuable for parliament has changed over time.The changing form of valuable nature also has consequences for how pollution shouldbe avoided and what kind of policy instruments that are considered relevant.In the early 20th century nature was primarily regarded as a robust and unchangeableentity. Starting from the early 1950s this understanding of nature is undergoing impor-10 GISLE ANDERSEN | PARLAMENTETS NATURtant changes. Rather than being viewed as a robust entity, nature is to larger extent seenas fragile and should be protected from humans: Nature should be conserved. Duringthe next decades the relevant form of nature to protect is gradually redefined as «theenvironment». In contrast to the idea of protecting «nature» from humans, pollutionwas primarily a problem because it harmed the human environment.A significant change occurred during the 1990s. The Norwegian parliamentary debatesfrom this period are characterised by a harsh ecological self-critique. This had severalconsequences, among them a new environmental statute in the Norwegian Constitution.A new way of valuing nature emerged: What is valued is not nature «itself» butthe function that nature has for humans, the conservation of nature understood as a«life supporting production system» for humanity. This view of nature specified thevaluation of nature as anthropocentric. Another important dimension of the new way ofvaluing nature is that it clearly limited what form of nature that should be protected: Itis legitimate to pollute and to harm parts of nature, but only as long as one does not threatenthe production system that humans depend upon. As long as an activity can go onwithout diminishing the functional utility of nature for humanity; use, change anddestruction of nature can be considered legitimate. This could be understood as a minimumdefinition of sustainability. These changes are linked to the ways the modern societiestoday responds to, and tries to control, global environmental change.

This book is included in DOAB.