Jane Shaw Stroup

Chair of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, she was president of the center (then called the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy) from 2008 until 2015, when she retired. Stroup is a past president of the Association of Private Enterprise Education. She is married to economist Richard Stroup.

Jane Shaw Stroup (who also writes under the name Jane S. Shaw) is chair of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. She was president of the center (then called the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy) from 2008 until 2015, when she retired. 

Stroup spent 22 years with PERC, the Property and Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana, where she was a senior fellow. Previously, she was a journalist and was an associate economics editor of Business Week before she joined PERC. With Michael Sanera, she coauthored Facts, Not Fear: Teaching Children about the Environment and initiated a book series for young people, Critical Thinking about Environmental Issues. She coedited A Guide to Smart Growth (Heritage Foundation) with Ronald Utt. 

Stroup is a past president of the Association of Private Enterprise Education. She is married to economist Richard Stroup.

Is Recycling Useful or Just Garbage?

Is Recycling Useful or Just Garbage?

From Michael Munger’s paper for AIER.

Should we recycle aluminum cans? Probably, because the price of recycling aluminum compares very favorably to using virgin materials, the mining and smelting of which are expensive in terms of energy and harmful to the environment.

Should we recycle toilet paper? We could, at some price. But it’s likely not worth it, because it can be composted, it would be awfully hard to clean and sort, and in any case paper products are actually a renewable resource, rather like wheat. You rarely hear someone saying, “Save the wheat! Give up bread!”

 

read more
New Rules on Endangered Species: Did the NYT Get it Wrong?

New Rules on Endangered Species: Did the NYT Get it Wrong?

New York Times: Trump Administration Weakens Protections for Endangered Species.”

The new rules would make it easier to remove a species from the endangered list and weaken protections for threatened species, the classification one step below endangered. And, for the first time, regulators would be allowed to conduct economic assessments — for instance, estimating lost revenue from a prohibition on logging in a critical habitat — when deciding whether a species warrants protection.

No, according to PERC; “The New Endangered Species Act Rules Explained.”

This rule-change does not allow economic impacts to affect whether a species is listed as endangered or threatened. Indeed, the rule explicitly “acknowledge[s] that the statute and its legislative history are clear that listing determinations must be made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available” according to five statutory factors. Thus, the rule gives the agency no authority to decline to list a species based on the economic impacts of such decision. If the agency attempted to do so, it would violate the statute and the rule.

read more
Are Global Skeptics Dying Off?

Are Global Skeptics Dying Off?

Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT, suggested at a recent meeting that prominent scholars  who were skeptical about global warming are being replaced by a generation of students of climate science—which, he says, is often not science at all.

For the past 30 years, ever since global warming became a public issue, Lindzen has questioned the apocalyptic view of climate change. As the topic rose to public attention in the late 1980s, Lindzen was so prominent that his views could not be ignored. Richard Kerr wrote in Science magazine in 1989 that “no other U.S. skeptic has such scientific stature.”

But over time, Lindzen became a target of hostility from advocates of global warming extremism. More disturbing perhaps were sometimes subtle attacks by his colleagues, including editors of peer-reviewed journals. For example, as he recounted in 2008, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society published a paper, written with colleagues, that found a strong cooling effect from clouds. But the Bulletin then published a paper disputing this cooling effect without giving Lindzen and his coauthors the opportunity to respond in the same issue (the normal practice). And American Scientist, the journal of the scientific honor society Sigma Xi, refused to publish an article by Lindzen unless he found as a coauthor someone who differed with him on global warming!

read more