SACRAMENTO, CA - A popular bumper sticker in Texas reads, "Don't Mess With Texas," a pro-environment, anti-littering message that takes on an ironic character at the moment because trashing Texas is exactly what a few environmental groups are doing. Shortly before the California primary, TV viewers were treated to a lurid advertisement from the Sierra Club conveying the impression that Texas has the worst environment in the nation, with the most "toxic chemicals" and the worst air quality. In case you couldn't connect the dots, they said, "Call Governor Bush--tell him to clean up the air."

In this politicized atmosphere of Earth Week, I arrived in Austin to release a Texas version of our annual environmental report card, The Texas Index of Leading Environmental Indicators 2000 (co-published with the Texas Public Policy Foundation). I found a packed press conference, with the Sierra Club on hand, an appropriate audience for some basic facts.

There is no rigorous basis for saying any one state has the "worst" or "best" environment. Judgments and comparisons of environmental condition depend on what measure is chosen, and any weighting of factors to settle on the "best" or "worst" state would be highly arbitrary. The claim that Houston has the "worst air quality in the nation" is based on a single measure--ozone--that probably has more to do with disadvantageous weather conditions in Texas, while Los Angeles, the long-time champ for smog, has enjoyed cooler than normal summers, the last several years (thank you, La Ni-a). Houston meets the national air quality standards for all five of the other criteria pollutants, and compares favorably to many other cities in some categories. For example, Houston has achieved an ambient lead level of zero, while "clean" Seattle has experienced soaring lead levels in recent years.

Environmentalists also tag Texas for having the highest level of "toxic chemicals," but this is highly misleading since the EPA explicitly says that its toxic data is not reflective of health risk to the public or harm to the environment. Since Texas has 60 percent of the nation's petrochemical industry, you would expect them to report the largest amount of chemical use. Moreover, Texas is leading the nation with the most rapid rate of reducing the amount of toxic chemicals, while in many other states, including Tennessee, toxic chemical use is on the rise.

The Sierra Club handed out an anonymous flyer containing a cartoonish attack on PRI and, after I finished, held their own rebuttal press conference. "Well, um … yes," they had to admit, "the environment in Texas has been improving, but…" The weasel-word "but" gives it all away, of course. When the reporters finished, I posed a simple question.

The Sierra Club apparently wants to hold governors accountable for trends in their states, and has singled out Michigan and California as states doing far better than Texas. Shouldn't they, therefore, praise California former Governor Pete Wilson and Michigan's John Engler? "We've never had anything nice to say about Governor Engler," was the response.

I rest my case.

-Steven Hayward