Syftet med arbetet är att beskriva ett antal olika metoder som används vid viktning i samband med livscykelanalyser, samt diskutera hur valet av metod kan påverka resultatet av analysen. Metoderna som beskrivs är EPS2000, Ecoindicator99, ReCiPe, Stepwise2006 och LIME. Varje metod beskrivs kort med påverkanskategorier, skyddsobjekt och indikatorer. Metoderna grundas på beräkningar av utsläpp och resursanvändning, men för att få fram viktningstalen så använder man sig av olika teorier, paneldiskussioner, frågeformulär och subjektiva antagande. Min slutsats är att det är svårt att få viktningsmetodiken mindre subjektiv, och att mycket vid viktningen bygger på antagande. Varje metod bygger på olika antaganden och det är därför viktigt att man är tydlig med vilka omständigheter som gäller vid beräkningarna samt att man inte jämför resultat från olika metoder. Däremot så går det utmärkt att jämföra olika produkter med hjälp av samma viktningsmetod, och att hitta i vilket skede i livscykeln som man får störst miljöpåverkan. Jag tror att det egentligen är diskussionen kring produktens miljöpåverkan som är det väsentliga, inte värdena som man får från viktningen, då dessa till så stor del baseras på antagande och gissningar. / The purpose of the study is to describe some methods used for weighting when conducting a life cycle analysis, and discuss how the choice of method may effect the result of the analysis. The methods described are EPS2000, Ecoindicator99, ReCiPe, Stepwise2006 and LIME. Each method is shortly described with impact categories, safety objects and indicators. The methods are based upon calculations of pollutions and use of resources, but to get the weightingfactors, one will have to rely on different theories, panel discussions, questionnaries and subjective assumptions. The conclusion of the study will be that it is difficult to get the methods for weighting less subjective, and that much of the weighting will be based upon assumptions. Every method is built on different assumptions, and therefor is it important that each are clear with the circumstances for the calculations, and you can not compare results from the different methods. On the contrary you may compare products if you use the same one for both, and you may also find in which phase of the lifecycle when you will get the most impact of the environment. I think that the discussion about the environmental impact of the product is most important, not the figures you will get from the procedure of weighting, which is based upon assumptions and guesses.

This thesis makes use of biopolitical theory to examine the governmental and organizational response to the covid-19-infodemic. It aims to answer the puzzling research question as to why the infodemic – whose inherent problem is an overabundance of information – is responded to and met with even greater amounts of information by governments and health organizations, and what implications these measures may have on the population. The analysis finds that the question can partly be answered by derivation to previous research within the field of crisis communication: the most efficient way to respond to mis- and disinformation is to respond with correct information and with counter arguments. To answer the question in full an analysis of the subject of security is conducted where what can be interpreted from the material, following a modified version of Carol Lee Bacchi’s “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” method, is that the human judgement can be understood as the subject of security. The idea is that by securing the human judgment through improving people’s health literacy, people can be taught to act in a manner which is coherent with the state’s biopolitical goals, i.e. to secure the survival of the population. The analysis also shows that while these measures are made in an effort to secure the population, the measures themselves risk becoming a threat to the very population it is supposed to protect.