Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-17-Speech-4-247-500"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111117.17.4-247-500"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"How, and to what extent, should we finance the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER)? The subject regularly appears on the agenda of the European Parliament. 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 all the more necessary 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 continue from now on with the resources it has been given. While research – into 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 using part of the EU research budget on funding for ITER alone. This is without mentioning the planned budget cuts in the field of research, which will only make the imbalance between spending on research devoted to nuclear energy and on that into renewable energies worse. 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