垃圾跨境转移是全球环境正义领域研究的重点。长期以来，以发达国家为主的垃圾出口国向发展中国家输送国内垃圾，形成全球范围内垃圾流动的贸易链。产业链长期存在的原因主要在于经济利益，让产业链上的各个环节因此获益，但同时也造成处理垃圾的环境负担不公正地由以发展中国家为主的垃圾接收国承担。这一全球贸易链因中国在2017年宣布停止进口垃圾而受到震荡。中国一度是世界最大垃圾进口国，在较长时间内一直是发达国家最大的垃圾出口地。本研究以中国政府发布全面禁止“洋垃圾”入境规定为契机，选取以中国、印度为代表的垃圾进口国和美国、澳大利亚为代表的垃圾出口国，通过考察四国媒体有关跨国垃圾转移的媒介话语，借助语言网络理论，结合语义网络分析和框架分析的方法，从环境正义和全球性伦理两个维度分析产业链上不同国家媒体看待垃圾的异同。本研究获取了中国、印度、美国、澳大利亚国内媒体在中国宣布停止进口“洋垃圾”至今一年半时间内发布的跨国垃圾贸易相关报道，发现垃圾出口国家与垃圾进口国家的媒体报道体现出截然不同的话语倾向。作为垃圾进口国的中国和印度在媒体报道中倾向于从环境正义维度解读垃圾跨境转移，认为垃圾是一种风险、环境负担，跨境垃圾是发达国家向发展中国家倾倒的危害物质；而作为垃圾出口国的美国和澳大利亚媒介报道中倾向于从经济发展角度解读垃圾跨境转移，强调垃圾具有的可再生价值，报道中较少体现环境正义维度。中国媒体报道体现出比印度媒体报道更高的环境正义维度。本文也发现，四国媒体均主要基于本土性伦理报道垃圾跨境转移议题。其中，澳大利亚媒体在报道上体现了最高程度的本土性伦理，媒体基本从本土性视角报道中国禁废令和相关产业情况，而有关垃圾对进口国家的污染问题报道则基本缺位。基于全球性伦理的报道在印度、美国媒体报道内容中均有所体现，两国媒体均将跨境垃圾视为超越国界的问题，但印度媒体更着重造成垃圾跨境转移背后的全球南方–北方权力关系。在有关垃圾经济内涵的报道上，美国、澳大利亚媒体强调禁废令对全球产业链的重塑；有关垃圾污染内涵的报道上，中国、印度媒体强调出口垃圾对发展中国家环境造成的损害。
Transboundary waste movement is in the center of global environmental justice studies. For a long time, developing countries are the world's "dumping ground", dealing with waste shipped mostly from developed countries, which has become the main part of the global waste trade. However, this global chain was greatly affected after China, the world's largest waste importer, decided to stop importing garbage in 2017. In the post-era of Chinese government's "foreign garbage ban", I selected China, India, the U.S. and Australia as the representative countries, respectively, of waste importer and waste exporter to study their media reports on transboundary waste flow. My selection of the countries studied is based on their involvement in transboundary waste trade, their languages and accessibility of relevant media reports. By analyzing the four countries' media discourse on transboundary waste movement along two axes — environmental justice (EJ) and global ethics — I study how waste, as either a global/local risk or an economic resource, is reflected on countries' news reports. Combining quantitative semantic analysis and Entman’s approach to frame analysis as the research method, I found out that China and India's media reports are more likely following the global North-South EJ discourse, while the U.S. and Australia media are mostly talking about the economic value of waste. All four countries’ media reports prioritize parochial interest and culture when writing about transboundary waste movement which is a global problem and requires transboundary cooperation, serving their local audience instead of a global audience. Nevertheless, the Indian media is also inclined to identify both transboundary waste movement and pollution thereof as a global problem, reflecting the journalists’ non-parochial ethics which could be seen as a step towards achieving global media ethics.
