Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-15-Speech-2-434-659"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111115.27.2-434-659"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"How and to what extent should we finance ITER? The subject regularly appears on the European Parliament’s agenda. It is now being discussed again, as part of the vote on the extension of the Euratom Framework Programme. Pursuing nuclear research is all well and good, but the research budget should not be devoted exclusively to nuclear energy. Diversification is necessary. I say this in particular because, with the exponential increase in the cost of the ITER project since its launch in 2006 – from EUR 6 billion to EUR 16 billion – I believe that the project should now continue with the resources it has been given. While research – both fusion and fission – is a good thing (even if it should be diversified), I deeply regret the increase in appropriations (an additional EUR 700 000 for 2012) and the financial tinkering planned, as it would mean draining part of the EU research budget solely to fund ITER, not to mention the planned budget cuts in the field of research, which will only exacerbate the imbalance between research spending on nuclear energy and on renewable energies. For these reasons, I voted against the Březina reports on the Euratom Research Framework Programme."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples