Cool Response: The SEC & Corporate Climate Change Reporting

Climate change and its regulation pose significant risks and opportunities to investors and corporations. The nearly 30 billion in insured losses from Hurricane Sandy alone dramatically underscore this reality. New climate-related federal and state regulations in recent years also present risks and opportunities to companies in the electric power, coal, oil & gas,transportation and insurance sectors. Investors seek greater transparency and disclosure on the business risks of climate change as a means to protect and increase shareholder value.The key regulator that leads federal efforts to provide investors with information about corporaterisks and opportunities is the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). At the heart of the SEC's mission is the protection of investors through meaningful corporate reporting:The laws and rules that govern the securities industry in the United States derive from a simpleand straightforward concept: all investors, whether large institutions or private individuals,should have access to certain basic facts about an investment prior to buying it, and so longas they hold it. To achieve this, the SEC requires public companies to disclose meaningfu lfinancial and other information to the public. Only through the steady flow of timely,comprehensive, and accurate information can people make sound investment decisions. The SEC recognized the financial impacts of climate change when it issued Interpretive Guidance on climate disclosure in February 2010, responding to over 100 institutional investors representing 7 trillion who supported the Guidance. The Guidance outlines expectations from companies in reporting on "material" regulatory, physical, and indirect risks and opportunities related to climate change.This report examines the state of such corporate reporting and associated SEC comment letters on climate change. It also provides recommendations for the SEC and companies on improving the quality of reporting. The report examines (1) the state of S&P 500 reporting onclimate disclosure and (2) SEC comment letters addressing climate disclosure from 2010 to the end of 2013

The Transformation of Teaching Habits in Relation to the Introduction of Grading and National Testing in Science Education in Sweden

In Sweden, a new curriculum and new methods of assessment (grading of students and national tests) in science education were introduced in grade 6 in 2012/2013. We have investigated what implications these reforms have for teachers’ teaching and assessment practices in order to explore the question of how teachers transform their teaching habits in relation to policy reforms. Interviews with 16 teachers teaching science in grade 6 (Y6), over 3 years after the reforms were introduced, were analysed. Building on the ideas of John Dewey, we consider teachers’ talk about their everyday practice as expressions of their habits of teaching. Habits of teaching are related both to individual experiences as well as institutional traditions in and about teaching. A categorisation of educational philosophies was used to teachers’ habits of teaching to a collective level and to show how habits can be transformed and developed over time in specific sociocultural contexts. The teachers were categorised as using essentialist and/or progressivist educational philosophy. In the responses to the introduction of grading and national testing, the teachers took three approaches: Their habits being reinforced, revised or unchanged in relation to the reforms. Although the responses were different, a striking similarity was that all teachers justified their responses with wanting to do what is best for students. However, how to show care for students differed, from delivering scientific knowledge in alignment with an essentialist educational philosophy, to preparing students to do well on tests, to supporting their development as individuals, which is in alignment with a progressivist educational philosophy

Adenocarcinoma following urinary diversion

The use of bowel segments in urinary diversions has been associated with an increased risk of neoplasia. This report describes three cases of intestinal adenocarcinoma following urinary diversion. In the first case, a 73-year-old woman developed moderately-differentiated colonic adenocarcinoma in her Indiana pouch 10.5 years after cystectomy. The second case involved a 77-year-old man with well-differentiated adenocarcinoma in his Indiana pouch 9 years after radical cystoprostatectomy and en bloc urethrectomy. The third case involved a 38-year-old man with moderately-differentiated adenocarcinoma arising in his ileal conduit 33 years after the creation of the conduit. These cases highlight the diagnostic signs of adenocarcinoma arising in urinary diversions and emphasize the importance of lifelong surveillance in these patients