No, it actually sounds like he supports common-sense protection of the environment. I am old enough to remember the bad-old-days of the chronic smog alerts of the 70's, and I don't want to go back to that. But he says nothing in that message to support the idea that he believes in "climate change" regulations of any kind.
you are correct, but he makes it sound like he would support regulation that takes jobs and the economy into account- it’s not what he said that had me concerned, it is what he didn’;t say that made me uncertain of his position- I had asked him how man could be responsible when man only contributes 0.0015% CO2 (that’s the total amount of CO2 I n the atmosphere due to man- nature produces the bulk of the 0.04% - an amount so small as to be nearly zero)- I got no answer from him concerning that basic question- but rather got a response that made it SEEM LIKE he would support legislation that took jobs and economy into account- Yes, he mentioned pollution regulations as well, but made it SEEM LIKE (not yelling just stressing the point) he would also support climate change regulations as well when he said,
“For these reasons, I oppose the proposals of President Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and some in Congress to limit greenhouse gases without regard to jobs and the economy.”
it just seemed to me like he implied he would support ‘sensible climate change regulation’ and my basic question to him was how man can even be responsible for climate change when 1: CO2 does not cause warming 2: CO2 rises decades AFTER warming takes place, and 3: Man’s contribution is so small that even if CO2 could cause climate change, man simply was not capable of producing nearly enough to change the climate since we only contribute 0.0015% to the total atmospheric CO2-
I had hoped I was wrong about his stance on ‘man-caused’ climate change, but his response left me with an uneasy feeling for the reasons I mentioned-