失落的教養技能：當Gen Alpha迷上壽司，父母正付出什麼代價？

 失落的教養技能：當Gen Alpha迷上壽司，父母正付出什麼代價？

Gen Alpha已經愛上了蝦天婦羅和鮭魚握壽司——而父母正為此付出沉重代價。《華爾街日報》最近報導的卡加利媽媽Grace Embury，半開玩笑地說，讓孩子接觸壽司是她「最糟糕的財務決定」，其實反映了更大的問題：許多家長覺得自己已經失去了基本的教養技能，尤其在飲食、金錢與界線設定上。

表面上看，這只是一個「孩子愛吃壽司」的流行現象，實則是高度商業化、便利導向、螢幕形塑的教養模式的縮影。壽司方便、外觀適合拍照、又被包裝成「健康食物」，完美符合現代家庭外送、外食與「美食家」文化的節奏。一旦孩子習慣了高價餐廳餐點，父母就很難再拒絕，即使每週壽司帳單接近150美元。

在這背後，有幾個更深刻的問題。第一，許多千禧世代父母本身就是第一代「美食家」，希望孩子成為「會吃」的探索者，而不只是吃雞塊與起司通心粉的孩子。第二，Gen Alpha本身是全球化的、螢幕原生的一代，從學校到家中都習慣餐廳等級的食物，因此生魚與異國風味對他們來說是常態，而非恐懼。第三，社群規範與網紅文化把「高級兒童餐」正常化，讓偶爾的犒賞變成日常期待。

同時，傳統教養技能的流失，也表現在父母輕易將餵養決策外包給餐廳、外送App與流行趨勢，而非設定清晰、一致的規則。父母原本出於好意——選擇快速、看似健康的壽司——但一旦孩子將家庭出遊與高價餐點連結，父母就難以再設下界線。結果不只是預算受損，更是一種權威的悄然流失：說「不」像是製造衝突，而說「好」才像表達愛。

要重建教養技能，家庭需要重新建立三件事：結構（固定的家庭自煮餐、明確的犒賞預算）、對話（解釋為什麼壽司是特別的，而非日常）、以及榜樣（父母自己也吃孩子被期待吃的較簡單食物）。當孩子理解食物是關於營養、連結與界線，而不只是新奇與適合拍照時，父母才能重新找回那種曾經定義良好教養的沉穩自信。

The Lost Art of Parenting: How Gen Alpha’s Sushi Obsession Is Exposing a Deeper Crisis

 The Lost Art of Parenting: How Gen Alpha’s Sushi Obsession Is Exposing a Deeper Crisis

---

Gen Alpha has acquired a taste for shrimp tempura and salmon nigiri—and parents are paying a heavy price. The Wall Street Journal’s recent story about Grace Embury, a Calgary mother who jokingly calls introducing her children to sushi her “worst financial decision,” captures a small symptom of a much larger shift: many parents today feel they have lost basic parenting skills, especially around food, money, and boundaries.

What looks like a simple “kids love sushi” trend is actually a sign of how deeply commercialized, convenience‑driven, and screen‑shaped parenting has become. Sushi is fast, Instagram‑ready, and framed as “healthy,” so it fits perfectly into the modern family’s rhythm of takeout, delivery apps, and “foodie” culture. Once children are hooked on premium restaurant meals, parents find it harder to say no, even when the weekly sushi bill climbs toward $150.

Underlying this are several deeper problems. First, many Millennial parents grew up as the original “foodie” generation and now want their kids to be adventurous eaters, not just nugget‑and‑mac‑and‑cheese consumers. Second, Gen Alpha itself is global, screen‑native, and used to restaurant‑style food at school and home, so raw fish and exotic flavors feel normal, not intimidating. Third, social norms and influencers normalize “premium” kids’ meals, turning occasional treats into routine expectations.

At the same time, the loss of traditional parenting skills shows up in how easily adults outsource feeding decisions to restaurants, apps, and trends instead of setting clear, consistent rules. Parents may start with good intentions—quick, “healthy” options like sushi—but then struggle to enforce limits once children associate family outings with high‑cost dining. The result is not just a dent in the budget, but a subtle erosion of parental authority: saying “no” feels like conflict, while saying “yes” feels like love.

To recover parenting skills, families need to rebuild three things: structure (regular home‑cooked meals, fixed budgets for treats), conversation (explaining why sushi is special, not everyday), and modeling (parents eating the same simpler food they expect from kids). When children understand that food is about nourishment, connection, and limits—not just novelty and Instagram‑worthiness—parents regain the quiet confidence that once defined good parenting.

達沃斯、私人飛機與碳矛盾——氣候經濟學的視角

 達沃斯、私人飛機與碳矛盾——氣候經濟學的視角

每年一月，世界經濟論壇（WEF）在達沃斯高談「淨零」、氣候韌性與「行星界限」。然而，同時瑞士阿爾卑斯山的天空卻充滿私人飛機，載著全球精英往返峰會。從氣候經濟學角度，這不僅是諷刺，更是高碳奢華運輸圍繞高調永續活動的典型案例，揭示全球氣候治理中言論與行為的深層張力。

私人飛機排放飆升有多大？

飛行追蹤與NGO分析顯示，近年達沃斯周邊私人飛機流量急劇上升。2025年論壇週，附近機場記錄約709架次額外私人飛機，相當於每四位參與者一架。2026年，僅兩天內就有150–300架次降落瑞士，WEF相關商務航空排放估計達數千噸CO₂——約等同數百瑞士居民年排放量。私人飛機是碳密集度最高的運輸方式之一：每乘客排放約商業航班的十倍，甚至火車的五十倍。當與會者從夏威夷、烏拉圭、吉隆坡、香港等地飛來，單次旅行氣候影響尤為顯著。

為何私人飛機需求持續上升？

多種因素驅動此需求飆升：

• 時間稀缺與便利：CEO、國家領導人與高階主管重視門到門旅行、彈性時程與安全，私人飛機優於商業航空。

• 地位與排他性：私人飛機抵達彰顯財富與權力，強化達沃斯生態系的社會階層。

• 重複進出：許多飛機不只降落一次，而是在一週內多次往返，將達沃斯機場變成「私人飛機穿梭樞紐」。

從經濟史看，這類似舊時帝王、君主與殖民總督的精英移動模式：今日全球精英以私人航空作為高地位、高碳運輸選擇。

WEF的氣候政策缺口

WEF本身推廣低碳旅行：提供100%歐洲火車票折扣，鼓勵鐵路優先。部分大企業如雀巢與瑞銀，據報敦促主管搭乘商業航班並透過瑞士Myclimate等方案抵銷排放。

然而這些措施未顯著減少私人飛機使用。環保團體指出，參與人數穩定，但私人飛機架次自2023年以來三倍增長，問題在於到達方式而非人數。批評者稱此為碳偽善：同一領袖談論「在行星界限內建立繁榮」，卻負責顯眼的奢華驅動排放飆升。

對氣候經濟學的啟示

從氣候經濟學角度，達沃斯私人飛機排放揭示三點：

1. 奢華排放高度集中：少數頂層1%產生不成比例的航空CO₂，尤其透過私人飛機與商務艙。

2. 定價與監管關鍵：私人飛機旅行幾乎未課稅且輕度監管，氣候成本外化至社會。

3. 象徵性峰會的矛盾：全球氣候峰會成為高碳景觀場所，飛機抵達的視覺與氣候責任訊息衝突。

倡議者推動更強措施：嚴格限制達沃斯機場商務航空夜間起降、提高私人飛機降落費、對極端財富運輸（私人航空與頭等艙）課新全球稅。達沃斯飛機故事不僅是阿爾卑斯小鎮現象，更是全球不平等、精英移動與弱氣候定價如何削弱WEF聲稱氣候目標的縮影。

Davos, Private Jets, and the Carbon Contradiction – A Climate‑Economics View

 Davos, Private Jets, and the Carbon Contradiction – A Climate‑Economics View

Every January, the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos fills the air with talk of “net zero,” climate resilience, and “planetary boundaries.” Yet at the same time, the skies above the Swiss Alps fill with private jets carrying the global elite to and from the summit. From a climate‑economics perspective, this pattern is not just ironic; it is a textbook case of carbon‑intensive luxury transport clustering around a high‑profile sustainability event, revealing deep tensions between rhetoric and behaviour in global climate governance.

How big is the jet‑emissions surge?

Flight‑tracking and NGO analyses show that private‑jet traffic around Davos has risen sharply in recent years. During the 2025 WEF week, roughly 709 additional private‑jet flights were recorded at nearby airports, equivalent to about one private jet flight for every four participants. In 2026, more than 150–300 private jets landed in Switzerland over just a couple of days, with estimates of WEF‑related business‑aviation emissions in the range of several thousand tonnes of CO₂—roughly the annual footprint of hundreds of Swiss residents.

Private jets are among the most carbon‑intensive modes of transport: they emit about ten times more CO₂ per passenger than commercial flights, and up to fifty times more than trains. When the WEF crowd flies in from distant hubs—Hawaii, Uruguay, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong, and beyond—the per‑trip climate impact becomes especially stark.

Why the demand for private jets keeps rising

Several factors drive this demand spike:

• Time scarcity and convenience: CEOs, heads of state, and senior executives value door‑to‑door travel, flexible schedules, and security, which private jets deliver far better than commercial airlines.

• Status and exclusivity: Arriving by private jet signals wealth and power, reinforcing social hierarchies within the Davos ecosystem.

• Re‑entrant traffic: Many jets do not just land once; they shuttle participants multiple times over the week, turning Davos‑area airports into a “private‑jet shuttle hub.”

From an economic‑history standpoint, this mirrors older patterns of elite mobility: just as emperors, monarchs, and colonial governors once travelled with elaborate entourages, today’s global elite use private aviation as a high‑status, high‑carbon transport option.

The WEF’s climate‑policy gap

The WEF itself promotes low‑emission travel: it offers 100% discounts on train tickets for participants coming from within Europe and encourages rail over air. Some large firms, such as Nestlé and UBS, have reportedly urged executives to fly commercial and to offset unavoidable emissions via Swiss‑based schemes like Myclimate.

Yet these measures have not significantly reduced private‑jet use. Environmental groups note that overall attendance has been stable, but private‑jet flights have tripled since 2023, indicating that the problem is not more people coming, but how they choose to arrive. Critics call this a carbon hypocrisy: the same leaders who speak about “building prosperity within planetary boundaries” are responsible for a highly visible, luxury‑driven emissions spike.

What this tells us about climate economics

From a climate‑economics angle, Davos private‑jet emissions illustrate three broader points:

1. Luxury emissions are highly concentrated: a small fraction of the population (the top 1%) generates a disproportionate share of aviation‑related CO₂, especially via private jets and business‑class travel.

2. Pricing and regulation matter: because private‑jet travel is largely untaxed and lightly regulated, the climate cost is externalised onto society, not onto the users.

3. Symbolic summits face symbolic contradictions: global climate summits and economic forums can become carbon‑intensive spectacle sites, where the optics of flying in by jet clash with the message of climate responsibility.

Some campaigners now push for stronger measures: stricter curfews on business‑aviation at Davos‑area airports, higher landing fees for private jets, and new global taxes on extreme‑wealth transport such as private aviation and premium‑class flights. In this light, the Davos‑jet story is not just about one Alpine town; it is a miniature model of how global inequality, elite mobility, and weak climate pricing combine to undermine the very climate goals the WEF claims to champion.

---