Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-15-Speech-2-434-177"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111115.27.2-434-177"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"How and to what extent should we fund ITER? The issue is regularly on the agenda of the European Parliament. It has come up again in the vote on extending the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). Continuing nuclear research is fine, but the research budget should not be committed entirely to nuclear energy. There is a need to diversify, especially since, with the cost of the ITER programme having increased exponentially since its launch in 2006, rising from EUR 6 to 16 billion, I think that the project should continue with the means available. While research into both nuclear fusion and fission is a good thing (although it should be diversified), I very much regret the increase in appropriations (a further EUR 700 000 in 2012) as well as the anticipated financial tinkering, which would result in earmarking part of the European research budget just to fund ITER, not to mention the fact that budgetary cuts are planned in the field of research, which will only exacerbate the imbalance between research expenditure on nuclear energy and that devoted to developing renewable energy. For these reasons, I voted against the Březina reports on the EURATOM Framework Research Programme."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples