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.
Example: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example solution: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Example explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

Problem: Paragraph: The companies behind PlayStation, Xbox, Angry Birds, Minecraft, Twitch and other video games and platforms pledged Monday at the U.N. to level up efforts to fight climate change and get their throngs of users involved. The promises range from planting trees to reducing plastic packaging, from making game devices more energy efficient to incorporating environmental themes into the games themselves. "I believe games and gamers can be a force for social change and would love to see our global community unite to help our planet to survive and thrive," Sony Interactive Entertainment CEO Jim Ryan said on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly gathering of world leaders. Ryan said Sony's plans include outfitting the next-generation PlayStation system with a low-power, suspend-play mode. He said if 1 million players use it, they could save enough electricity to power 1,000 average U.S. homes. Some games already are set in drowning coastal cities, educate children about wildlife or otherwise address environmental issues. Former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon anointed the Angry Birds character Red as an "honorary ambassador for green" in 2016. But the idea of gaming green got new visibility with Monday's commitments from 21 companies, facilitated by the U.N. Environment Program and showcased against the backdrop of Monday's U.N. climate summit . With an estimate of more than 2 billion video game players globally, "this is the most powerful mobilization channel in the world," David Paul, the Marshall Islands' environment minister, told the gaming CEOs. His low-lying Pacific island homeland faces an existential threat from rising seas as the planet warms. The "Playing for the Planet" pledges come from an industry that isn't always seen as nurturing societal good. Parents and psychologists have fretted for years about games and other digital diversions sucking youths into staring at screens. The U.N.'s World Health Organization this year recommended no more than an hour of screen time a day for children under 5, and none at all for those under 1. Gaming company leaders say that not all screen time is of equal value. They believe their products can engage players on such serious issues as climate change. "We try to provide entertainment with substance," Clark Stacey, CEO of WildWorks, said in an interview. Among the initiatives: WildWorks intends to incorporate new materials about habitat restoration and reforestation into its children's game Animal Jam, and to plant a tree for every new Animal Jam player. Microsoft plans to make 825,000 Xbox consoles that are carbon-neutral or don't cause any net increases in heat-trapping carbon dioxide and to promote real-life sustainability activities through its massive-selling game Minecraft. Angry Birds maker Rovio Entertainment is offsetting carbon emissions generated by each of its daily, active players charging one mobile device per day for a year. Game streaming giant Twitch, owned by Amazon, intends to spread sustainability messages through its platform. Google's upcoming Stadia streaming service is financing research on how people can be inspired to change their behavior through games. "They're participatory. They require the player to take action. It's not just absorbing a message from the outside," said Erin Hoffman-John, Stadia's lead designer for research and development. Strange Loop Games already has ecological issues at the heart of its simulation game Eco. Players collaborate to build a civilization and confront its impacts on the environment. If they cut down too many trees, for example, they might kill off a species. "For us, it's less about telling the player about being green or avoiding climate change than letting them have that experience, letting them face that challenge themselves in a world that they care about," CEO John Krajewski said in an interview. "And then they can bring that to the real world." ___ Follow Jennifer Peltz on Twitter at @jennpeltz. Claim: Green gaming: Video game firms make climate promises at UN.
Solution: Gaming is going green and some of the biggest game companies hope players will, too.