Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Room
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Personal Schedule
Sign In
Since 2019 the Netherlands has been in the grip of a ‘nitrogen crisis’. We have seen at times violent farmer protests in response to government proposals to tackle excess ammonia emissions from livestock farming. Some of the online messaging from critics of proposed policies is clearly a form of disinformation, stating, for example, that the government wants to acquire farmland to build homes for immigrants. We present empirical work comparing online messaging around the Dutch nitrogen crisis with climate change disinformation, both environmental issues, which have been adopted by right-wing, populist politicians. A literature review on climate change disinformation reveals categories of actors involved in funding, producing and spreading disinformation, as well as the strategies and arguments they use to spread disinformation. We are able to identify many of the same categories of actors involved in questioning the nitrogen crisis. Analyzing online messaging from these actors, we identify strategies and arguments used. Whilst we do find evidence of denial of the scientific basis of the nitrogen crisis, many of the arguments are more nuanced. Key differences between climate change disinformation and questioning of the nitrogen crisis include, for climate change, a focus on spreading doubt about science versus, for the nitrogen crisis, more focus on flawed policy and the use of weak science in determining this policy. The victims in the messaging also differs, in the case of climate change, this being the general public, and for the nitrogen crisis, the farmers. We discuss the criminological implications of our exploratory study, drawing on the harm principle, often used in green criminology, and on the link between online polarization and offline violence.