Workshop: Energy governance and sectoral trajectories: France and Japan in evolutionary perspective

1 06 2016



AS: Anyone who will be in Paris on 6 June and who is interested in attending this workshop should contact the organisers on to reserve a place. There is no fee.
Energy governance and sectoral trajectories: France and Japan in evolutionary perspective
6 June 2016, 9.30-18.00, 190 Avenue de France, 638 (6th floor)

9.30-9.45 Introduction and welcome, Sebastien Lechevalier (EHESS) and Patrick Fridenson (EHESS)

9.50-10.30 Alexandre Rojey (Fondation Tuck)
The energy transition in France and in the world – Objectives and obstacles

10.35-11.15 Yukiko Fukasaku (Independent scholar)
The energy transition in Japan – Challenges and opportunities in comparative context

11.20-12.00 Miyuki Tsuchiya (Université Paris II / Cersa)
Governing energy: the ambiguous link between policy and politic after 3/11. A comparison between France and Japan

Lunch 12.00-13.00

13.00-13.40 Takeo Kikkawa (Tokyo University of Science)
The evolution of Japan’s electricity industry since the 20th century

13.45-14.25 Alain Beltran (CNRS / Université Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris I)
The history of French electricity since the 20th century
14.30-15.10 Chenxiao Xia (Kyoto University)
Japanese electrification as contrast with the West

Tea break

15.35-16.15 Aleksandra Kobiljski (CNRS / Institut d’Asie Orientale)
Energy workaround: Upgrading coal in Japan’s steel industry

16.20-17.00 Maki Umemura (Cardiff University / FFJ)
Innovation, governance and uncertain shifts in Japan’s photovoltaics industry

17.05-17.45 Christophe Bouneau (Université Bordeaux III Michel de Montaigne)
Governance strategies and innovation dynamics in the French energy sector since the

Interwar period

17.50-18.00 Concluding remarks
Please email to register attendance.

CFP: The Environmental Histories of Ports and Ocean Trade

22 04 2015

Call for papers

“The Environmental Histories of Ports and Ocean Trade”
Liverpool, 18th-19th September 2015

Throughout history, humans have exchanged and traded in biological agents, specimens, and commodities, often with very dramatic and unequal effects on environments and ecologies, cultures, nations, and economies. Since the Columbian Exchange, the number of organisms (human and non-human) passing through the world’s ports has increased dramatically. Natural resource extraction, exploitation, and transfer has been both enriching and denuding – for human societies and natural worlds. Impacts are felt in both exporting and importing locations. They have reshaped human nutrition and been central to core industries of the first, second, and third industrial revolutions. They have introduced new sources of pleasure and enjoyment to societies, as well as inducing fear and anxiety about invasion by ‘alien’ species.

Port cities are obvious loci for these very long-running and deeply embedded flows and processes. They are key points through which transfers are handled and in which they are made manifest. Ports have risen and fallen with the fortunes of the resources passing through them. They have helped reshape ecologies and have themselves had their own environments reshaped, for example by dramatic changes in waterfront topography or the importation and naturalization of non-indigenous species of flora and fauna.

The waterfront of the great port city of Liverpool is still dotted with huge warehouses that were once dedicated to the oceanic trade in a wide variety of different natural products; from rice and sugar to bananas and cotton. They are testament to profoundly important commodity trades that encircled the world, helping to establish Liverpool as a leading commercial metropolis of the British Empire. As such, Liverpool is an ideal location for a conference on the environmental histories of ports and ocean trade (18th-19th September 2015).

Building on a growing interest in integrating environmental history with other sub-disciplines, this two-day conference will reflect on environmental histories of port cities and ocean trade. This theme will have a wide appeal, to, amongst others: environmental historians and historical geographers, food historians, social and cultural historians, business and economic historians, historians of empire, subaltern studies, archaeologists. Topics of potential interest might included but are not limited to:

• Ports and environmental knowledge
• Environmental histories of oceans, estuaries, and marine life
• The role of ships in connecting transoceanic ports
• Ports in the age of sail versus the age of fossil fuels
• Ports in temperate and tropical worlds
• Ports as exotic and liminal environments
• Ports, urban development, and pollution
• Ports, tourism and the environment
• The environmental histories of fishing industries and fishing ports
• Commodities, empires, and expansion?
• Changing port and riparian topographies and ecologies
• Quarantines: human and non-human
• Environmental history, ports and food systems (from cuisine, to food security, to the political economy of international food trade)
• Ports as sites of biological – and other – invasions
• Ports and climate history
• The built environments of port landscapes and waterscapes: histories and legacies

We are interested in receiving proposals for either individual papers or full panels. For individual papers please send an abstract of no more than one A4 page and a brief biography. For panels (no more than three papers) please send abstracts and biographies for each paper and a cover sheet briefly outlining the rationale of the panel. Please send all proposals to Professor Andrew Popp at by 30th June 2015

The Buzz About Citizen Coke

4 02 2015

I’m going to be co-editing a special issue of the journal Business History with my frequent research collaborator Kirsten Greer. The theme of the special issue is the intersection of business and environmental history: all of the papers in the SI will look at the historical relationship between business and the natural environment.

Because of my work on the special issue, I’ve been encouraged by the fact that Bartow Elmore’s new environmental history of the Coca-Cola company has generated extensive media attention. The degree of attention that has been paid to Citizen Coke is unusual for an academic book, especially one that is the author’s first major publication.

Here is the book’s blurb:

How did Coca-Cola build a global empire by selling a low-price concoction of mostly sugar, water, and caffeine? The easy answer is advertising, but the real formula to Coke’s success was its strategy, from the start, to offload costs and risks onto suppliers, franchisees, and the government. For most of its history the company owned no bottling plants, water sources, cane- or cornfields. A lean operation, it benefited from public goods like cheap municipal water and curbside recycling programs. Its huge appetite for ingredients gave it outsized influence on suppliers and congressional committees. This was Coca-Cola capitalism.


Positive reviews of the book have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Business Standard. [The Business Standard review faults the book on stylistic rather than for content]. A more critical but nevertheless thoughtful review appeared in  Columbia Daily Tribune. The review published in the WSJ is favourable, which is impressive given that Elmore’s book is hardly compatible with the ideological agenda of that newspaper.  The book has also been described in media sources ranging from the Daily Mail, a middlebrow UK newspaper to the Huffington Post to Bloomberg Radio. The book has also been cited in the debates about whether to levy special taxes on sugary foods.

You can listen to Elmore talk about his research here. You can watch him here.

Anyway, the interest that Elmore’s book has generated has convinced us that our Special Issue on Business/Environmental History will be of use to a wide variety of academics.

Of Redwoods and Property Rights

23 10 2014

AS: The ways in which property rights can protect natural resources have been explored by Professor Terry Anderson over his long academic career. (listen here). The theme of property rights appears to be an important one in Greg Gordon’s new biography of A.B. Hammond. I’ve put key sentences in Sarah Anderson’s review in bold.

Published by EH.Net (September 2014)

Greg Gordon, When Money Grew on Trees: A.B. Hammond and the Age of the Timber Baron.  Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2014. xiv + 482 pp. $30 (cloth), ISBN: 978-0-8061-4447-4.

Reviewed for EH.Net by Sarah Anderson, Department of Department of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Greg Gordon’s When Money Grew on Trees: A.B. Hammond and the Age of the Timber Baron follows the life of A.B. Hammond, once the owner of the largest redwood logging company in the United States and a major player in logging throughout the West. The book uses his biography to explore themes of how timber ownership affects its harvest, the politics of public lands, and the relationship between industrialists and labor unions.

After learning the logging ropes on the East Coast, including New Brunswick, Hammond, like many other young men of the era, moved west to seek his fortune. Arriving too late to make it in gold, he founded the Missoula Mercantile, which would serve as a continual source of credit throughout his career as a timber baron. Hammond frantically logged the open-access timber of Montana to supply the railroads and the mines. He then moved to the West Coast, building mills, railroads, and company towns to cut the large coastal trees.

Gordon’s main thesis is that the West was not just exploited by Easterners but that Westerners themselves contributed. He succeeds in offering at least anecdotal evidence of this in the form of A.B. Hammond, but his more interesting insights come in his discussions of the tragedy of the commons in western forests, the political economy of public lands, and the nascent labor union movement.

While Gordon does not focus entirely on economic history, his insights draw from a notion that incentives (and particular ownership rights) drive behavior. Gordon’s book can be read as a continuous narrative of the ways in which a failure of both ownership rights and government contributed to the over-extraction of western natural resources. From the bison, about which he states that “Without ownership claims, and without government or community restrictions, the animals [bison] were doomed” (p. 45), to timber poaching in places like Cramer Gulch, Montana where two teams literally fought to cut and move the logs, pushing, swearing, cutting logs loose, and dumping loads, the book illustrates how the early chaos of settlement allowed the A.B. Hammonds of the time to quickly extract resources and move on.  Because it covers a long time span, the book demonstrates how the same man adapted to ownership conditions as they changed.  Following Hammond’s career offers an opportunity to observe him taking advantage of lack of ownership, well-defined property rights, or government as it serves his interests. Where there was a lack of clear ownership, he poached timber from unsurveyed lands, knowing that charges would be difficult to make stick when the government couldn’t identify whether the land was held by the railroads or by the government. He intensely extracted logs without long-term investments. Where the property rights were well-defined, he bought competing lumber mills (and more importantly their timber lands) whenever possible. He built company towns and permanent large mills. And where government policy could benefit his enterprises, he lobbied (or even outright bribed) government officials to put their stamp of approval on clearly false settlement claims.

Scholars of the economic history of labor will particularly appreciate Gordon’s detailed presentation of the struggle of labor versus capital. A.B. Hammond was virulently anti-union and went to great lengths to avoid a unionized workforce. He imported labor from all over the world, shuttered plants, and used his political acumen to bring the force of the law down on strikers. Gordon’s detail allows for a useful comparison between the varieties of capitalism that were emerging in the early 1900s from proprietary capitalism, with its paternalistic attitudes toward workers, to Hammond’s industrial capitalism, where workers were simply inputs to production.

Throughout, Gordon is attentive to the ecological forces at play, and not just the ecological consequences of logging. He notes that the pure stands of ponderosa pine facilitated a mechanized timber industry, that the long regeneration time of 2,000 year old redwoods made sustainable yield a difficult, if not impossible, concept, and that the varied role of fire in the western ecosystems changed how loggers logged.

If the book suffers at all, it is in length. Gordon covers so much ground that each reader may find herself captivated by only a portion of the 400+ pages. Given the contribution Gordon makes to a detailed understanding of the political economy of public land and the history of the conflict between labor unions and industrialists, the book is a worthy read for scholars with a deep interest in either.

Sarah E. Anderson (Associate Professor at the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management and in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara) is the author (with Heather Hodges and Terry Anderson) of “Technical Management in an Age of Openness: The Political, Public, and Environmental Forest Ranger,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (2013) and “Complex Constituencies: Intense Environmentalists and Representation,” Environmental Politics (2011)

Business History and Environmental History

10 07 2012

I recently presented at the Association of Business Historians conference in Birmingham. It was a brilliant success, which attests to the organizational skills of Stephanie Decker, the chief planner. I always find business history conferences to be immensely stimulating because of their interdisciplinary nature and the commitment of the presenters to research that is both archive-based and theoretically informed.
There were many great papers at this year’s conference. However, there was one in particular that got me thinking about some of the fundamental issues that face business history as a discipline. That paper was by someone who wouldn’t describe herself as a business historian. I’m speaking of Jessica van Horssen’s piece, Medical Risk vs. Financial Reward: Corporate Social Responsibility in the Global Asbestos Trade, 1930-1977, which focused on the history of the Canadian asbestos industry, which she argued was basically the antithesis of ethical capitalism. The paper is based on her PhD research, which is described here.

Driving home after the conference, I got thinking about the relationship between the sub-disciplines of business history and environmental history. I would say that these two sub-disciplines are currently thriving: more and more people want to be associated with them, attend their conferences, publish in their journals, etc.

These two sub-disciplines are thriving, in part, because they are interdisciplinary in a way that, say, diplomatic or gender history are not. Business and environmental history conferences attract scholars based in a range of disciplinary departments. At a typical business history conference, one will find people from such departments as public policy, political science, marketing, strategy, accounting, economics, as well as history. These scholars are drawing on a wide range of theoretical frameworks, ranging from Foucault to hardcore statistical analysis. Environment history conferences are equally inter-disciplinary, as they attract a range of scholars from the social and physical sciences.

Environmental and business history are quite similar in a lot of respects. It is sad, therefore, that there are isn’t more overlap between these two sub-disciplines. Logically, these two sub-disciplines should be engaged in an extensive dialogue, since for-profit entities have had a major impact on the environment over the last few hundred years.

In an article that appeared in the Business History Review in 2000, Christine Meisner Rosen and Christopher C. Sellers called for more engagement between the two sub-disciplines. They told business historians to do more research into the impact of companies on the environment and they told environmental historians to pay more attention to business and familiarise themselves with the secondary literature on business history. They wrote:

Oddly enough, however, despite this broad conception of their field, our colleagues in environmental history have shown almost as much reluctance to tackle business’s environmental relations as business historians have. Both fields have sorely neglected the borderlands between them. Pathbreaking environmental historians have launched a harsh critique of capitalism that has entailed surprisingly little scrutiny of managers or corporations.  Early on, most environmental historians concentrated on the history of wilderness, agriculture, the conservation movement, or modern environmentalism, where they believed nature and its defense were most obviously found.  Preoccupied with setting out a distinctive field of historical endeavor in relation to frontier and Western history as well as environmentalism itself, most assumed that they knew the history of the large corporation all too well—its inner workings as well as its outwardly impacts. They envisioned a monolithic nineteenth¬ and twentieth¬century economic system that offered little entry point or incentive for closer study of individual companies, businessmen, or even industries as a whole. A 1990 Journal of American History roundtable presenting the views and agendas of major environmental historians offered virtually no discussion of the shift to corporate capitalism that had become the central preoccupation of business history.

Obviously there has been some improvement in the last twelve years. Christine Meisner Rosen and Christopher C. Sellers have continued to publish work that lies on the interface between environmental and business history. Richard White springs to mind as an example of a historian whose research speaks to both environmental and business history. In 2007, Enterprise and Society, a leading business history journal, published Pierre Desrochers’s fascinating article “How Did the Invisible Hand Handle Industrial Waste? By-Product Development Before the Modern Environmental Era”. However, I think that it is still safe to say that the amount of cross-over research on business and environmental history is very limited, especially in view of the enormous importance of the topics involved. In their 2009 piece in the Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Hartmut Berghoff and Mathias Mutz showed that the situation hadn’t changed that much since 2000.

I might be wrong, but I don’t think there has been much improvement in the last three years either.

The Humanities Effect, Social Science, Hard Science, and the Future of Academic History

3 01 2012

Perspectives on History, the magazine of the American Historical Association, recently published a very detailed piece on the state of the job market for history doctorates.  The author, Robert B. Townsend, presents some interesting data about what happens to people who get PhDs in history. The “bad news” is that only about 30% of the people who started PhDs in 1997 had landed tenure-track jobs by 2007. This is bad news, because most people who start PhDs in history are aiming to become professors.

The good news is that most of the PhD graduates go on to have fulfilling careers in which they make good use the credential they have earned. There are, of course, cases of history PhDs who end up working as real estate agents or in other occupations utterly unconnected to their field. Sometimes this is by choice or because of family reasons. In other cases, they simply can’t find an academic job. For the most part, however, the people who don’t get tenure-track academic jobs ultimately get positions in government and other organisations that allow them to use the skills they acquired in graduate school.  Consider this chart


Even though I’m a Canadian who did his PhD at a Canadian university (Western), I think that the pattern identified by Townsend’s data corresponds with what I observed about my colleagues from my PhD programme at Western. Most of the people who were in the programme with me have landed tenure-track jobs. In some cases, they got their jobs after several years on the post-doc/sessional lecturer circuit. Some of the others who didn’t get academic positions have found very comfortable niches for themselves working in government. Western began granting history PhDs in the late 1960s. The department has listed the current occupations of all of the PhD recipients since 1990 on its website.  The data here is incomplete, particularly for students who finished their PhDs in the last couple of years, but it gives a rough sense of where people have gone.

I was particularly interested in the part of Townsend’s article that deals with the so-called humanities effect.

One other change in the ecology of the academic job market is worth noting, as history salaries are now suffering from the “humanities effect.” As history has become more closely identified with the humanities over the past 25 to 30 years, history salaries have fallen below the average for all disciplines.

Back in the mid-1980s—when history was more closely aligned with the social sciences—history was above the average in academia. Since then, the discipline has fallen decisively below the average and now stands close to the other humanities fields such as English and Foreign Languages.6

The disciplinary shift from affiliation with social sciences—often made tangible through administrative shifts of history departments from their universities’ School of Social Science—had a direct effect on the resources available to departments. When combined with the large number of PhDs competing for a smaller number of jobs, wages in the discipline have been depressed for members of our discipline.

Townsend is making a very important point here.  The discipline of history is torn between the humanities and the social sciences. On the one hand, there are historians who approach history in a way that would not seem unfamiliar to a scholar of English literature or an art historian. On the other hand, there are the historians who incline more towards the social sciences, particularly political science and economics. Most political, diplomatic, and business historians fall into this category. Some history departments are more cultural, others are more social-scientific. Western, my PhD program, is one of the few history departments in Canada that is located in a Faculty of Social Science rather than in faculty of Arts or Humanities and that is reflected in the nature of the history taught and produced there. Some of the most stimulating parts of my graduate education were the joint seminars in which political scientists and economists. When I arrived at Western as a graduate student, I experienced a bit a culture shock, as my undergraduate eduction was at a university where the historians lean strongly in the opposite direction. At the time I completed my BA,  my main interests were in the history of political thought.  When I arrived at Western, I was thrust into a world in which historians spoke about regression analysis and IR theory.

As a business historian, I now count myself in the category of the social-scientific historians. However, I certainly see value in the humanities and feel it is sad that they are underfunded. I didn’t choose to specialize in the more social-scientific branches of history because I thought that there might be a bit more money in that field. I selected my research approach because that’s what interested me. However, now that I have ended up where I have, I recognise that there are some financial benefits in avoiding the so-called humanities effect.

Townsend’s comments about the humanities effect got me thinking about the future direction of the historical profession. The two fastest growing fields of history right now are digital history and environmental history.

Some of the people who work in the field of digital history are based in history departments. Others are computer scientists. At places like the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University, you have people from various disciplinary backgrounds working alongside each other.  Environmental historians work with and draw on the knowledge created by biologists, geologists, environmental scientists, and other hard scientists. Moreover, physical scientists sometimes make use of the research findings of environmental historians. For instance, archival research by environmental historians has allowed us to reconstruct climate data for the past few centuries, which is immensely important for the debate about anthropogenic climate change.

Now, the humanities effect stems from the fact that society values some disciplines that study society (e.g., economics and political science) a bit more highly than others (e.g. literary studies). Economists and political scientists have somewhat more prestige than literary scholars. However, it is safe to say that  all of the disciplines that study society rank very low in the view of the general public and policy makers than people in the hard sciences, particularly the STEM subjects. The average taxpayer or legislator might display a slight preference for funding political science over poetry, but the funding allocated to the study of society is minuscule to that governments lavish on Big Science.   Since the Second World War and, more particularly, the launch of Sputnik in 1957, governments in Western countries have been very generous in their funding of scientists. Sputnik convinced many in the West that the Soviets had a dangerous lead in science and technology and they responded by shovelling money at the problem with the apparent support of the vast majority of citizens.

Many taxpayers begrudge spending relatively small amounts of money on the humanities and the social sciences, but there is pretty much a consensus in favour of generous support for the hard sciences. The hard sciences enjoy massive prestige in our society. Almost nobody critiques government funding of medical research, particularly on common diseases like cancer and heart disease. Computer science is also generously funded, again because it has massive prestige.

As I said, the two fastest growing sub-disciplines of history are digital history, which marries computer science and historical research, and environmental history. It just so happens that these sub-disciplines of history are closely connected with disciplines that enjoy considerable prestige and financial support in our society (the West) and in all of the other societies that give substantial funding for academic research (e.g., Japan, Korea, Singapore and, increasingly China and some of the Gulf States).

If historians were to adopt a completely mercenary approach towards securing the future of their profession, they would do well to encourage the growth of environmental history and digital public history. This is true for individual academic departments as well. Don’t get me wrong. There are perfectly valid non-financial reasons to foster these important fields. In a world with unlimited academic resources, it would still be the right thing to nurture these two branches of historical enquiry. However, in a world of constrained resources, there are additional reasons for wanting to promote them.

History Journals With Impact

22 08 2011

Earlier this year the Times HES published a list ranking history journals by impact factor. The list was based on Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports.

Here are the top 10 journals on their list, ranked by 5-year impact factor. The chart I posted a few days ago shows the impact factor in any given year, which can clearly lead to some wild swings. (There are, obviously, advantages to using a five-year moving average).

American Historical Review 2.188
Environmental History 1.085
Journal of American History 1.047
Social Science History 0.796
Journal of Modern History 0.67
Journal of African History 0.644
Journal of British Studies 0.636
Comparative Studies in Society and History 0.515
History Workshop Journal 0.5
Journal of Contemporary History 0.478

Tina Loo shared this link with me in a comment on a post in which I spoke about the recent decline in the number of citations to articles in the journal Environmental History. The chart I posted at the time shows that the impact factor of that journal peaked in 2006, right before it moved behind a paywall.

It is striking that Environmental History is near the very top of the list. I wonder to what extent articles in this journal are being cited by historians as opposed to people in the other disciplines that intersect with environmental history.  Most articles in a more traditional history journals are read and cited mainly by other historians, or maybe by the odd political scientist.  In contrast, the articles in EH are likely to interest people in a wider range of disciplines. The reason I say this is that at least some librarians operate on the assumption that most of the users of the journal Environmental History will tend to be in geography, ecology, disaster management, and other departments. They obviously know something about who reads this journal.

Although I’m certainly no expert in the sub-discipline of environmental history, although I’ve become familiar with the journal Environmental History in the last few months, as I have planned out the reading list for a history of globalisation course.
My other observation is that the Journal of Global History (founded in 2006) isn’t on this list.   In 2010, the JGH had an impact factor of 0.625 and was ranked by Thomson Reuters as the fourth most cited history journal in the world. I strongly suspect that in a few years, the JGH‘s five-year impact factor will also be impressive. Interestingly enough, some of the most cited and most downloaded articles in the JGH archive are papers dealing with environmental-historical topics.e.g., McCook, Stuart. 2006. “Global Rust Belt: Hemileia Vastatrix and the Ecological Integration of World Coffee Production Since 1850”. Journal of Global History. 1, no. 2: 177-195.

Is _Environmental History_ in Decline?

16 08 2011

The American Historical Review was the most cited journal in history in 2010, garnering one in every eight citations to a history journal in 2010, according to a Journal Citation Reports analysis of references to 1,000 articles from 43 history journals. Read more here.

Does anybody know why the impact factor for the journal Environmental History peaked in 2006? Environmental history is one the hottest fields in history, so I would be curious to know why citations of articles in that journal have fallen so dramatically since 2006. Have other journals in the field of environmental history appeared? Or is there less interest in environmental history? I’m not an expert on this field, although I am a sympathetic observer, so I would be interested to know what the heck is going on.

Background: Copublished by the American Society for Environmental History and the Forest History Society in association with Oxford University Press, Environmental History is the successor publication to the journals of the two organizations, Environmental History Review and Forest & Conservation History. Environmental History Review was published from 1976 to 1989 as Environmental Review. Forest & Conservation History was published from 1957 to 1958 as the Forest History Newsletter, from 1959 to 1974 as Forest History, and from 1975 to 1989 as the Journal of Forest History.

The Social Impact of Volcanoes in European History: Cool Podcast

20 04 2010

Dr Jan Oosthoek of the University of Edinburgh has produced a podcast on the impact of volcanoes in European history. You can download it here.

Ash Plume, 17 April 2010

Hat tip to

Looks Innocent...

Claire Campbell in Copenhagen, Continued

14 12 2009

Prof. Claire Campbell

Canadian historian Claire Campbell continues to live blog from the Copenhagen climate conference:

“So initially I actually felt guilty for being at Bright Green, which is essentially an industrial trade show, because it felt – well, opportunistic. A case in point: one speaker pointed out that for the global South, sustainability is not a luxury; sustainable practices are “the path to affluence.” Great, I thought. Then he added, “And there’s a lot of money to be made there.” And I winced.”

To read more, click here.