Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: Democrats on a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform released a cache of internal Juul emails and other documents that committee staff described as early attempts to "enter schools and convey its messaging directly to teenage children." Juul's use of social media influencers to promote its vaping devices in the years after it launched in 2015 also came under scrutiny. James Monsees, Juul's co-founder and chief product officer, told the committee that the company's target audience from the beginning has been adult cigarette smokers. Among efforts cited in the Juul documents released were a $134,000 payment to set up a five-week "holistic health education" summer camp at a Maryland charter school, recruiting children from third through 12th grades, and offering $10,000 to schools using the company's "youth prevention and education" programs for students, including those caught using e-cigarette products. "You don't think that sounds strange at all?" Representative Katie Hill, a Democrat, asked Juul's chief administrative officer, Ashley Gould. "All of these educational efforts were intended to keep youth from using the product," Gould responded. When Juul realized how the school involvement could be perceived as negative, "we stopped the program," she said. In a statement after the hearing, Juul said the $134,000 donation was to "facilitate already-existing community outreach and youth-prevention programs," and said the company "did not have any direct interaction with the students." Several committee members said Juul's initiatives appeared similar to past efforts by the tobacco industry to reach young people under the guise of smoking prevention programs. Gould said Juul, which is 35 percent owned by Marlboro maker Altria Group Inc (MO.N), halted its program last year once it became aware of the tobacco industry's past moves. Caleb Mintz, 17, a New York city high school student, testified at a separate hearing on Wednesday that a Juul representative came to his school as part of an educational program on mental health and addiction last year. He said in an interview Thursday that students received "mixed messages" about the product, being told it was safe but not to buy it. Mintz said after the hearing that the Juul presentation seemed to be "playing to the side of teens as rebellious. When a teen is told not to do something, they're more likely to do it." Members of the committee also quizzed Gould and Monsees over the use of social media influencers to promote Juul's vaping devices. Company executives early on agreed that "younger consumers age 25 to 34 was going to be the target of our initial campaign," Monsees said. "They would be more receptive to new technology solutions," such as the Juul device. Amid an enormous uptick in teenage use of e-cigarettes in 2018 a 78% increase among high school students from 2017 to 2018, according to federal data Juul said it ended all social media advertising last fall. Juul also pulled many flavored nicotine pods, except mint, menthol and tobacco, from retail stores, which Monsees said represented more than half of the company's sales at that time. Claim: U.S. lawmakers grill e-cigarette maker Juul over efforts targeted at schoolchildren.
[EX A]: E-cigarette maker Juul Labs Inc funded a "holistic health education" camp as part of efforts to market directly to school-aged children, members of a U.S. congressional panel said on Thursday, citing internal company documents.

[EX Q]: Paragraph: "Patients used to pay $10,000 a year for cancer drugs, but now they're paying $10,000 a month, according to HBO talk show host Bill Maher. That's a message circulating on Facebook recently, promoted by the""Bill Maher Fanpage."" A reader asked us to check it out. The quote comes from the Oct. 2 episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, where Maher discussed Turing Pharmaceuticals, the company that jacked up the cost of a life-saving drug from $13.50 to $750 essentially overnight. ""Not that (Turing CEO Martin) Shkreli is unusual for the pharmaceutical industry,"" Maher said on his show. ""Fifteenyears ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month because this cartel owns the U.S. government every bit as much as Mexican drug lords own theirs."" It's well known that the cost of health care is on the rise,but has the annual cost of cancer drugs really increased so dramatically in just a decade and a half? Maher's team sent us links to some news articles about the rising cost of cancer drugs, and we tracked down information that speaks to his claim. The best information we could nail down is the cost of anticancer drugs at launch,the initial price when the Federal Drug Administration approves a drug. These are the sticker prices set by the pharmaceutical companies, not the prices patients actually pay out of pocket, which are reduced by insurance payments, patient assistance programs and other discounts. Costs increases, though, are often passed on to consumers. Maher has a point that cancer drug costs are on the rise. We charted the launch costs of cancer drugs the FDA approved since 1999, using a list compiled by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The second half of Maher's statement -- that cancer drugs now cost about $10,000 a month -- is also on solid ground. Of drugs approved in 2015, the monthly average cost is $11,319. And experts in the field often cite that $10,000 figure themselves. Because many cancer drugs are not administered to patients for a full year, it's difficult to determine an average annual cost, so the first half of Maher's statement -- that they cost about $10,000 a year 15 years ago -- is hard to nail down. To his point, though, the monthly cost of a new drug was dramatically lower in 2000 than what it is now at about $4,634. One of the news articles that Maher's team sent us is an academic article in the Journal of Oncology Practice that supports his statement. The report reads, ""The average cancer drug price for approximately one year of therapy or a total treatment duration was less than $10,000 before 2000."" Maher's statement is ""in the ballpark,"" if not an understatement, said Rena Conti, a health economist at the University of Chicago who researches cancer drug prices. In a 2015 paper Conti authored with three other leading health economists, she examined the launch cost of anticancer drugs controlled for inflation and the benefit to the patient (how much it prolongs life expectancy). For example, in 1995, anticancer drugs cost $54,100 for an additional year of life, the study found. In 2005, drugs cost $139,100 for the same benefit, and the price grew to $207,000 in 2013. In the United States, pharmaceutical companies set their own drug prices. What's pushing them to increase the costs? It's not necessarily that cancer drugs are getting better and are thus worth more. Conti's research concluded that just about one-fifth of the cancer drug cost increase can be attributed to a better product. There are two primary forces behind annual cancer drug cost increases, Conti said: First, pharmaceutical companies estimate a ""zone of indifference"" -- based on last year's prices, how much more would buyers be willing to pay? Second, rebates and discounts for drugs have also increased over time, and this creates an incentive for drug companies to increase their costs alongside the discounts. Pharmaceutical companies defend drug price increases by emphasizing that the revenue funds innovative research and that drugs lower overall health care costs by treating illnesses. Because there's no formal price regulation and competition in the industry is rare, ""It really is a system where there's no downward pressure on drug prices,"" said Peter Bach, director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Center for Health Policy and Outcomes in an interview with Fortune. Our ruling Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn't easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren't used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify,though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher's numbers are a little squishy, but they're in the ballpark." Claim: 15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month.
[EX A]: "Maher said, ""15 years ago, cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 a year. Now it's $10,000 a month."" The average annual cost of a drug isn't easy to calculate, given the way cancer drugs are scheduled; many drugs aren't used every month for an entire year. So the first half of the statement is hard to verify,though we did find one academic source that cites a similar figure. However, Maher has a point that the cost of cancer drugs has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average monthly price of a cancer drug, when it first hit the market, was about $4,600. In 2015, the monthly cost is over $10,000. Maher's numbers are a little squishy, but they're in the ballpark."

[EX Q]: Paragraph: The challenge looks formidable. When the 2008 financial crisis tipped the world into recession, carbon emissions fell. But as economies grew again, governments proved unable to halt an emissions rebound. The issue now is that at a crucial moment for international negotiations, the latest global economic blow could put paid to costly ideas for slowing climate change from political leaders and the private sector alike. "When things are more difficult then people are really going to be focused on financial performance," Hester Peirce, a Republican member of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said Monday as world markets dived. This time around, money managers interviewed by Reuters say a growing recognition of the prospect of massive disruption, underscored by Australia's bushfires, has permanently shifted the dial and put environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues front and center. "People look at ESG as a luxury and when recession hits it gets thrown out of the window," said Michael Lewis, who heads research into environmental issues at German asset manager DWS. "There's still going to be significant pressure on policymakers not to take their eye off the ball, because of the financial materiality of climate change," he added. The initial stages of the epidemic in China have already had a dramatic impact on the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, as Beijing locked down whole areas, shutting down factories and preventing travel. Finland's Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air says Chinese CO2 emissions fell by a quarter, or an estimated 200 million tonnes in the four weeks to March 1. Satellite data also showed a sharp fall in Chinese emissions of nitrogen dioxide, a noxious gas emitted by power plants, cars and factories, starting in Wuhan and then spreading over other cities, including the capital, noticeable over a fortnight in mid-February. "There is evidence that the change is at least partly related to the economic slowdown following the outbreak of coronavirus," NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center said in a report. But China has since began to resume business as usual and globally scientists say it is too early to estimate what the coronavirus outbreak's economic impact may mean for emissions. In 2009, global carbon emissions fell to 31.5 gigatons from 32 gigatons, the Global Carbon Project said. But as the global economy recovered, emissions jumped to 33.2 Gt in 2010 and to a projected 36.8 Gt in 2019, a record high. Graphic - Global carbon emissions: here For an interactive version of the graphic, click here The recession's impact in the United States was particularly marked, with CO2 emissions falling 10% between 2007-2009, due to factors including less consumption of goods and services, a paper here published by science journal Nature Communications said. Steve Davis, an associate professor at the University of California at Irvine and one of the paper's authors, said the growing U.S. usage of natural gas helped suppress the rebound. "The conclusion that the Great Recession helped decrease emissions is still true," he said. "But that's not the way we want to win the war on climate change." Coronavirus and the oil price fall come at a fraught time for international talks to avoid catastrophic global warming. Observers fear governments will delay making ambitious pledges at a make-or-break U.N. summit in Glasgow in November. "A recession is likely to complicate the politics of environmental policy, as it will drop in priority relative to the economy," Ruben Lubowski, chief natural resource economist at the Environmental Defense Fund, a Washington, D.C. advocacy group, said. Others see the drop in oil prices as an opportunity to impose more extensive carbon taxes. "The money raised can be used to support fossil fuel workers and retool the economy," said Kingsmill Bond, energy strategist at financial think-tank Carbon Tracker. The price plunge in oil triggered by a Saudi-Russia price war could also affect the shift away from carbon. With shares in oil majors hit hard this week, some investors question the wisdom of new oil and gas exploration, climate issues aside. At the same time, low oil and gas prices could reduce incentives for big emitters such as the European Union, Japan, China and India to wean themselves off fossil fuels. "A lower oil price will stall the green revolution in the world," Michel Salden, senior portfolio manager at Vontobel Asset Management, said. But rapid renewable energy cost falls could give decarbonisation more momentum than in past downturns. Steve Young, chief financial officer of Duke Energy Corp, (DUK.N), a major U.S. electric utility, told Reuters the coronavirus so far does not seem to affect progress toward its goal of reducing its carbon footprint by 50% by 2030 and reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Investors will also watch if any government stimulus packages aim to accelerate decarbonisation or simply encourage more high-emitting projects. Changed social attitudes could make it hard for politicians to dismiss climate concerns, Keith Skeoch, chief executive of Standard Life Aberdeen, said. But low oil prices will have some influence. "Cheap oil and cheap petrol probably does make (it), from a consumer's perspective, potentially a little bit more difficult to decarbonise," Skeoch said. Claim: For richer or poorer: coronavirus, cheap oil test climate vows.
[EX A]:
Climate change commitments by banks, pension funds and asset managers face their first major test as markets reel from the twin shocks of coronavirus and a sliding oil price.