First of all, calling everyone who disagrees with you "radical" or "leftist" is not toning down political rhetoric. No need to overdo it, Senator. "Environmentalists" alone was enough for your supporters to open their pocketbooks.
Second of all, not wanting to breathe polluted air is not all that radical an agenda to espouse. Neither is the contention that too much of a good thing, even if it is a source of life, can be a bad thing. Just ask the gulf seafood you want us to eat, Senator. (Tip: you should pose your question before you consume them.) According to Dr. Jeff Masters, guru of wunderground.com who did his dissertation on carbon dioxide (CO2): "increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels has already harmed sea life."
Dr. Masters further explains:
the fossil fuel industry's slogan, "Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life!" could just as truthfully be phrased, "Carbon dioxide. We call it pollution, and we call it death." One need only look at our sister planet, Venus, to see that too much "life" can be a bad thing. There, an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide has created a hellish greenhouse effect. The temperatures of 860 F at the surface are hot enough to melt lead. There's not too much life there! [Is Carbon Dioxide a Pollutant?]
Maybe the Senator's objection to cap-and-trade regulation of CO2 comes from a good place, say, a healthy skepticism of science. I don't know, but I'm going to maintain my own healthy skepticism of his motives. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a.k.a. opensecrets.org, 70% of Senator Vitter's wealth comes from the Energy & Natural Resources sector of the economy. Too much carbon dioxide may be bad for your health, but too much regulation might be even worse for Sen. Vitter's checkbook.