text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Green Taxes - Motion
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  <p>Those voting No rejected the motion for the debate, which read:</p>
  
  <blockquote>This House notes with alarm the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4861800.stm">rise in carbon emissions</a> since the Government took office in 1997; believes that this record is in part due to the steady <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2165795,00.html">fall in taxation</a> derived from green taxes from 3.6 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1999 down to 2.9 per cent. last year; notes <a href="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/story/0,,1717302,00.html">opinion poll support</a> for a green tax switch from people onto pollution; urges the Government to move from rhetorical assent on the need for action on climate change to serious policy proposals which will set annual targets to cut carbon emissions, allowing for natural variations from year to year, and establish an independent monitoring body to report on progress; and therefore calls on the Government to increase green taxes on new high-emission cars and on aviation while using revenue generated to cut direct taxes, particularly on low earners, so that there is no overall rise in the burden of taxation.</blockquote>
  
  <p>An alternative motion was proposed and accepted by the <a href="http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2006-10-16&number=306">next vote</a></p>
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  