Pandemic-related learning loss will cost our children $17 trillion in lifetime income, according to a U.N.-backed report released in December 2021.

"A mounting body of evidence confirms that learning losses as a result of COVID-19 school closures are real," the report said.

In the U.S., the most significant impact is on young children.

The report found 30% of Texas third-graders tested at or above grade level for math in 2021, compared to 48% in 2019. Similar learning losses were reported in more than a half-dozen other states.

"We're concerned if we don't catch up," said Dr. Pamela Davis-Kean, a research professor at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research. "If we don't overcome some of this, there are groups of people who probably will not be in the economic situation that they might have been in two years ago."

Davis-Kean said the abrupt shift to remote learning in spring 2020 had a negative impact on students and parents.

"Education, since the Industrial Revolution, has been in the institution of schooling. We moved it back to the home," Davis-Kean said. "The parents were the ones who had to make sure to connect the kids. They had to have the resources in the home to connect the kids."

Parents and legislators alike are eager to close the learning gap.

The American Rescue Plan, which Congress passed in early 2021, included $122 billion in funding for schools.

At least 20% of the money had to be spent "to address learning loss through the implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as summer learning or summer enrichment, extended day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or extended school year programs," according to a U.S. Dept. of Education fact sheet.

"Education is something we can always do something about," Davis-Kean said. "We can always teach, and kids will always learn. We just have to make sure that we have the opportunities to do that."

Most districts are already investing in programs to help children overcome learning loss.

A Bloomberg analysis in November 2021 found more than half of school districts that received stimulus money had set some aside for summer learning. About a third set aside money for tutoring.

However, that means many districts did not set aside extra funding for programs designed to fight learning loss.

Over the long term, the decision could put children at a disadvantage.

"People can argue about it, but education is generally the thing that opens up the door to higher-earning occupations," Davis-Kean said. "Once you change that in one generation, it opens up a door for the next generation."

The director of the United Nations' World Food Programme laid out a plan to spend $6.6 billion to combat world hunger — a direct response to a back-and-forth with Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who claimed he would sell Tesla stock to fund a plan if the WFP could describe "exactly how" it would work.

David Beasley, the U.N. food program director and former Republican governor of South Carolina, tweeted a link on Monday to a 1,000-word "executive summary." It maps out how the UN would deploy $6.6 billion worth of meals and vouchers to feed more than 40 million people across 43 countries that are "on the brink of famine" — thereby averting what the WFP is calling a looming "catastrophe."

In the document Beasley posted, the WFP proposes dedicating $3.5 billion to buy and deliver food directly, $2 billion "for cash and food vouchers (including transaction fees) in places where markets can function," and spending another $700 million to manage new food programs that are "adapted to the in-country" conditions and ensure "the assistance reaches the most vulnerable."

Another $400 million would be used for "operations management, administration and accountability" and supply chain coordination.

"The world is on fire," Beasley wrote. "I've been warning about the perfect storm brewing due to Covid, conflict, climate shocks & now, rising supply chain costs. IT IS HERE."

"This hunger crisis is urgent, unprecedented, AND avoidable," Beasley wrote in a separate tweet, tagging Musk, who is the world's wealthiest person with a net worth of approximately $288 billion. "You asked for a clear plan & open books. Here it is! We're ready to talk with you - and anyone else - who is serious about saving lives."

As of Wednesday afternoon, Musk had not responded.

The back-and-forth between Musk and Beasley kicked off with a CNN interview last month in which Beasley asked billionaires to "step up now, on a one-time basis" to help combat world hunger, specifically citing the world's two richest men: Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.

Beasley said giving $6 billion, or 2% of Musk's net worth, could help solve world hunger.

Musk responded on Twitter, writing, "If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it."

"But it must be open source accounting, so the public sees precisely how the money is spent," Musk added.

Beasley previously replied to Musk's tweets, assuring him that systems are in place for transparency and open source accounting.

"For him to even enter into this conversation is a game-changer because simply put, we can answer his questions, we can put forth a plan that's clear," Beasley told CNN in a follow-up interview earlier this month. "Any and everything he asks, we would be glad to answer. I look forward to having this discussion with him because lives are at stake."

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the world's hunger crisis was already exacerbated by climate change and conflict. The pandemic compounded the existing issues though, leaving "42 million people that are literally knocking on famine's door," Beasley said. "This is a worst-case scenario."

It's not clear if Musk or Bezos have seen the plan and will ultimately decide to lend their support. Spokespeople for Musk's companies did not respond to requests for comment. A representative for Bezos, Angela Landers, declined to comment on the WFP's proposal but pointed to other philanthropic donations Bezos has made to combating hunger.

Musk has previously made bold promises on Twitter, committing resources to charitable endeavors. In 2018, for example, he pledged to "fund fixing the water in any house in Flint that has water contamination above FDA levels." Musk ended up donating about half a million dollars for installing water filters in the town's schools, according to an August article from a local news outlet.

Musk has made more sizable donations to certain projects. This year, he promised to donate $30 million to Brownsville, Texas, the city nearest to a massive rocket hub run by his company SpaceX, and local schools.

He also set up the Musk Foundation, which says it gives to efforts related to renewable energy expansion, human space exploration and safe uses of artificial intelligence. He's also signed The Giving Pledge, a promise to donate at least half of his wealth to charitable efforts during his lifetime, something Bezos has not done.

GLASGOW, Scotland —

Almost 200 nations accepted a contentious climate compromise Saturday aimed at keeping a key global warming target alive, but it contained a last-minute change that watered down crucial language about coal.

Several countries, including small island states, said they were deeply disappointed by the change promoted by India to “phase down,” rather than “phase out” coal power, the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Nation after nation had complained earlier on the final day of two weeks of U.N. climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland about how the deal did not go far or fast enough, but they said it was better than nothing and provided incremental progress, if not success.

Negotiators from Switzerland and Mexico called the coal language change against the rules because it came so late. However, they said they had no choice but to hold their noses and go along with it.

Swiss environment minister Simonetta Sommaruga said the change will make it harder to achieve the international goal to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times.

“Our fragile planet is hanging by a thread,” United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said in a statement. “We are still knocking on the door of climate catastrophe.”

Many other nations and climate campaigners pointed at India for making demands that weakened the final agreement.

"India’s last-minute change to the language to phase down but not phase out coal is quite shocking,” said Australian climate scientist Bill Hare, who tracks world emission pledges for the science-based Climate Action Tracker. “India has long been a blocker on climate action, but I have never seen it done so publicly.”

Others approached the deal from a more positive perspective. In addition to the revised coal language, the Glasgow Climate Pact included enough financial incentives to almost satisfy poorer nations and solved a long-standing problem to pave the way for carbon trading.

The agreement also says big carbon polluting nations have to come back and submit stronger emission-cutting pledges by the end of 2022.

“It’s a good deal for the world,” U.S. climate envoy John Kerry told The Associated Press. “It’s got a few problems, but it’s all in all a very good deal.”

Before the India change, negotiators said the deal preserved, albeit barely, the overarching goal of limiting Earth's warming by the end of the century to 1.5 degrees. The world has already warmed 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to preindustrial times.

Ahead of the Glasgow talks, the United Nations had set three criteria for success, and none of them were achieved. The U.N.‘s criteria included pledges to cut carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2030, $100 billion in financial aid from rich nations to poor, and ensuring that half of that money went to helping the developing world adapt to the worst effects of climate change.

“We did not achieve these goals at this conference,” Guterres said Saturday night. “But we have some building blocks for progress."

Negotiators Saturday used the word “progress” more than 20 times, but rarely used the word “success” and then mostly in that they’ve reached a conclusion, not about the details in the agreement. Conference President Alok Sharma said the deal drives “progress on coal, cars, cash and trees’’ and is “something meaningful for our people and our planet.’’

Environmental activists were measured in their not-quite-glowing assessments, issued before India’s last-minute change.

“It’s meek, it’s weak and the 1.5 C goal is only just alive, but a signal has been sent that the era of coal is ending. And that matters,” said Greenpeace International Executive Director Jennifer Morgan, a veteran of the U.N. climate talks known as the Conferences of Parties.

Former Irish President Mary Robinson, speaking for a group of retired leaders called The Elders, said the pact represents “some progress, but nowhere near enough to avoid climate disaster... People will see this as a historically shameful dereliction of duty.”

Next year’s talks are scheduled to take place in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. Dubai will host the meeting in 2023.

___

Aniruddha Ghosal, Karl Ritter and Ellen Knickmeyer contributed to this report.

Related video above: President Biden talks about fires and climate change after surveying Caldor Fire damage

The two biggest economies and largest carbon polluters in the world announced separate financial attacks on climate change Tuesday.

Chinese President Xi Jinping said his country will no longer fund coal-fired power plants abroad, surprising the world on climate for the second straight year at the U.N. General Assembly. That came hours after U.S. President Joe Biden announced a plan to double financial aid to poorer nations to $11.4 billion by 2024 so those countries could switch to cleaner energy and cope with global warming's worsening impacts. That puts rich nations close to within reach of its long-promised but not realized goal of $100 billion a year in climate help for developing nations.

"This is an absolutely seminal moment," said Xinyue Ma, an expert on energy development finance at Boston University's Global Development Policy Center.

This could provide some momentum going into major climate talks in Glasgow, Scotland, in less than six weeks, experts said. Running up to the historic 2015 Paris climate deal, a joint U.S.-China agreement kickstarted successful negotiations. This time, with China-U.S. relations dicey, the two nations made their announcements separately, hours and thousands of miles apart.

"Today was a really good day for the world," United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is hosting the upcoming climate negotiations, told Vice President Kamala Harris.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who has made a frenetic push this week for bigger efforts to curb climate change called the two announcements welcome news, but said "we still have a long way to go" to make the Glasgow meeting successful.

Depending on when China's new coal policy goes into effect, it could shutter 47 planned power plants in 20 developing countries that use the fuel that emits the most heat-trapping gases, about the same amount of coal power as from Germany, according to the European climate think-tank E3G.

"It's a big deal. China was the only significant funder of overseas coal left. This announcement essentially ends all public support for coal globally," said Joanna Lewis, an expert on China, energy and climate at Georgetown University. "This is the announcement many have been waiting for."

From 2013 to 2019, data showed that China was financing 13% of coal-fired power capacity built outside China – "far and away the largest public financier," said Kevin Gallagher, who directs the Boston University center. Japan and South Korea announced earlier this year that they were getting out of the coal-financing business.

With all three countries pulling out of financing coal abroad "that sends a signal to the global economy. This is a sector that's fast becoming a stranded asset," Gallagher said.

While this is a big step it is not quite a death knell for coal, said Byford Tsang, a policy analyst for E3G. That's because China last year added as much new coal power domestically as was just potentially canceled abroad, he said.

Tsang cautioned that the one-sentence line in Xi's speech that mentioned this new policy lacked details like effective dates and whether it applied to private funding as well as public funding.

What also matters is when China stops building new coal plants at home and shutters old ones, Tsang said. That will be part of a push in the G-20 meetings in Italy next month, he said. "The Chinese are going to respond to international pressure, rather than just American bilateral pressure right now," said Deborah Seligsohn, an expert on China's politics and energy at Villanova University.

"A coal-free energy mix is still decades in the future" because coal power plants typically operate for 50 years or more, said Stanford University environment director Chris Field.

Many nations that are trying to build their economies — including top polluters China and India — have long argued they needed to industrialize with fossil fuels, like developed nations had already done. Starting in 2009 and then with "a grand bargain" in 2015 in Paris, richer nations promised $100 billion a year in financial help to poorer nations to make the switch from dirty to clean fuel, World Resources Institute climate finance expert Joe Thwaites said.

But as of 2019, the richer nations were only providing $80 billion a year, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

So when rich nations like the United States asked poorer ones to do more "it gives any other country a very easy retort," Thwaites said: "'You took out commitments and you haven't delivered on those either.'"

In April, Biden announced he would double the Obama-era financial aid pledge of $2.85 billion a year to $5.7 billion. On Tuesday, he announced that he hopes to double that to $11.4 billion a year starting in 2024, but he does need passage from Congress.

The European Union has been doling out $24.5 billion a year with the European Commission recently upping that to more than $4.7 billion over seven years. "The Europeans are doing a lot more and the Americans are lagging behind," Thwaites said.

He said several studies calculate that based on the U.S. economy, population and carbon pollution, it should be contributing 40% to 47% of the $100 billion fund to be doing its fair share.

But Congressional Republicans aren't convinced. "We shouldn't be contributing to a fund that picks winners and losers and further subsidizes China in the process," said Rep. Garret Graves, R-Louisiana, the ranking Republican on the House Climate Committee.

The time for global grandstanding is over said Princeton University climate science and international affairs professor Michael Oppenheimer said. "It's what's happening on the ground that matters."

"Accelerating the global phase out of coal is the single most important step" to keeping the Paris agreement's key warming limit within reach, said U.N. chief Guterres.